IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


7 


i^- 


&?/ 


1.0 


LI 


1.25 


'-  |||||M    11^ 

:  ™-  iiiiM 

"     liis    lllll 2.0 


1.8 


1-4    11.6 


V] 


<^ 


n 


o 


e), 


e. 


e, 


($> 


c*J 


.^ 


^;. 


7 


y^ 


Photographic 

Sciences 

Corporation 


23  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER,  NY.  14580 

(716)  872-4503 


6=    m. 


w- 


&?/ 


CIHM/ICMH 

Microfiche 

Series. 


CIHM/ICMH 
Collection  de 
microfiches. 


Canadian  Institute  for  Historical  Microreproductions  /  Institut  Canadian  de  microreproductions  historiques 


Technical  and  Bibliographic  Notes/Notes  techniques  et  bibliographiques 


The  Institute  has  attempted  to  obtain  the  best 
original  copy  available  for  filming.  Features  of  this 
copy  which  may  be  bibliographically  unique, 
which  may  alter  any  of  the  images  in  the 
reproduction,  or  which  may  significantly  change 
the  usual  method  of  filming,  are  checked  below. 


L'Institut  a  microfilmd  le  meilleur  exemplaire 
qu'il  lui  a  6t6  possible  de  se  procurer.  Les  details 
de  cet  exemplaire  qui  sont  peut-dtre  uniques  du 
point  de  vue  bibliographique,  qui  peuvent  modifier 
une  image  reproduite,  ou  qui  peuvent  exiger  une 
modification  dans  la  m^thode  normale  de  filmage 
sont  indiqu6s  ci-dessous. 


□ 
□ 


n/ 


Coloured  covers/ 
Couverture  de  couleur 

Covers  damaged/ 
Couverture  endommagde 

Covers  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Couverture  restaurde  et/ou  pelliculde 

Cover  title  missing/ 

Le  titre  de  couverture  manque 

Coloured  maps/ 

Cartes  g^ographiques  en  couleur 

Coloured  ink  (i.e.  other  than  blue  or  black)/ 
Encre  de  couleur  (i.e.  autre  que  bleue  ou  noire) 

Coloured  plates  and/or  illustrations/ 
Planches  et/ou  illustrations  en  couleur 

Bound  with  other  material/ 
Reli6  avec  d'autres  documents 


n 

n 
n 


Coloured  pages/ 
Pages  de  couleur 

Pages  damaged/ 
Pages  endommagdes 

Pages  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Pages  restaurdes  et/ou  pelliculdes 

Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxed/ 
Pages  d6color6es,  tachetdes  ou  piqu^es 

Pages  detached/ 
Pages  d§tach6es 

Showthrough/ 
Transparence 


□    Quality  of  print  varies/ 
Quality  indgale  de  I'impresiion 

□    includes  supplementary  material/ 
Comprend  du  materiel  supplementaire 


D 


D 


Tight  binding  may  cause  shadows  or  distortion 
along  interior  margin/ 

La  reliure  serree  peut  causer  de  I'ombre  ou  de  la 
distortion  le  long  de  la  marge  intdrieure 

Blank  leaves  added  during  restoration  may 
appear  within  the  text.  Whenever  possible,  these 
have  been  omitted  from  filming/ 
II  se  peut  que  certaines  pages  blanches  ajoutdes 
lors  d'une  restauration  apparaissent  dans  le  texte, 
mais,  lorsque  cela  6tait  possible,  ces  pages  n'ont 
pas  6t6  film^es. 


D 


Only  edition  available/ 
Seule  Edition  di:?ponible 

Pages  wholly  or  partially  obscured  by  errata 
slips,  tissues,  etc.,  have  been  refilmed  to 
ensure  the  best  possible  image/ 
Les  pages  totalement  ou  partiellement 
obscurcies  par  un  feuillet  d'errata,  une  pelure, 
etc.,  ont  6t6  film6es  d  nouveau  de  fapon  d 
obtenir  la  moilleure  image  possible. 


D 


Additional  comments:/ 
Commentaires  suppl^mentaires; 


n 


This  item  is  filmed  at  the  reduction  k^tio  checked  below/ 

Ce  document  est  filmd  au  taux  de  reduction  indiqu6  ci-dessous. 


10X 

14X 

18X 

22X 

26X 

SOX 

V^ 

12X 


16X 


20X 


24X 


28X 


32X 


The  copy  filmed  here  has  been  reproduced  thanks 
to  the  generosity  of: 

Metropolitan  Toronto  Library 
Social  Sciences  Department 


L'exemplaire  film§  fut  reproduit  grace  S  la 
g6n6rosit6  de: 

Metropolitan  Toronto  Library 
Social  Sciences  Department 


The  images  appearing  here  are  the  best  quality 
possible  considering  the  condition  and  legibility 
of  the  original  copy  and  in  keeping  with  the 
filming  contract  specifications. 


Les  images  suivantes  ont  6t6  reproduites  avec  le 
plus  grand  soin,  comnte  tenu  de  la  condition  at 
de  la  nettet^  de  l'exemplaire  filmg,  et  3n 
conformity  avec  les  conditions  du  contrat  de 
filmage. 


Original  copies  in  printed  paper  covers  are  filmed 
beginning  with  the  front  cover  and  ending  on 
the  last  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, or  the  back  cover  when  appropriate.  All 
other  original  copies  are  filmed  beginning  on  the 
first  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, and  ending  on  the  last  page  with  a  printed 
or  illustrated  impression. 


Les  exemplaires  originaux  dont  la  couverture  en 
papier  est  imprim^e  sont  film^s  en  commenpant 
par  le  premier  plat  et  en  terminant  soit  par  la 
dernidre  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration,  soit  par  \a  second 
plat,  selon  le  cas.  Tous  les  autres  exemplaires 
originaux  sont  film§s  en  commencant  par  la 
premiere  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration  et  en  terminant  par 
la  dernidre  page  qui  comporte  une  telle 
empreinte. 


The  last  recorded  frame  on  each  microfiche 
shall  contain  the  symbol  ^^  (meaning  "CON- 
TINUED"), or  the  symbol  V  (meaning  "END  "), 
whichever  applies. 


Un  des  symboles  suivants  apparaitra  sur  la 
dernidre  image  de  cheque  microfiche,  selon  le 
cas:  le  symbole  — »-  signifie  "A  SUIVRE",  le 
symbole  V  signifie  "FIN". 


Maps,  plates,  charts,  etc.,  may  be  filmed  at 
different  reduction  ratios.  Those  too  large  to  be 
entirely  included  in  one  exposure  are  filmed 
beginning  in  the  upper  left  hand  corner,  left  to 
right  and  top  to  bottom,  as  many  frames  as 
required.  The  following  diagrams  illustrate  the 
method: 


Les  cartes,  planches,  tableaux,  etc.,  peuvent  etre 
film^s  d  des  taux  de  reduction  diff^rents. 
Lorsque  le  document  est  trop  grand  pour  etre 
reproduit  en  un  seul  cliche,  il  est  film^  d  partir 
de  Tangle  sup^rieur  gauche,  de  gauche  d  droite, 
et  de  haut  en  bas,  en  prenant  le  nombre 
d'images  n^cessaire.  Les  diagrammes  suivants 
illustrent  la  m^thode. 


1 

2 

3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

•I 


'19-JL 


>4| 
■ftt 


The 

Neutrality  of  the  American  Lakes 


AND 


Anglo-American  Relations 


i^ 


A 


1^ 


Series  XVI 


NOS.   1-4 

JOHNS  HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY  STUDIES 


IN 


Historical   and   Political   Science 

HERBERT  B.  ADAMS,  Editor 


History  is  past  Politics  and  Politics  arc  present  }Iistorv.-/> 


eentaii. 


The 
Neutrality  of  tine  American  Lal<es 


AND 


Anglo-American  Relations 


BY 


JAMES  MORTON  CALLAHAN,  Ph.  D. 

S-o.nrihne  Assisfanf  an.,  Fellow  iu  His,o,y,  Jolun  Hopkins  frniversi/y 


THE    JOHNS    HOPKINS    PRESS,    BALTIMORE 

Published  Monthly 

JANUARY— APRIL 

1898 


-TV 


To 

PROFESSOR   HERBERT  B.  ADAMS 

Who  encouraged  this  study 


Contents. 


M 


I.     Introduction.    The  American  Peace  Policy.   .....       9 

II.  The  Northern  Lake  Holndary  ok  a  New  American 
Nation.  Conditions  which  led  to  the  Treaty  of 
^783 27 

III.  The   Struggle  for   the   Control  ok  the   Lakes. 

1783-1815-     From  British  to  American  Supremacy.  .      36 

IV.  The  Agreement  ok  1S17.     Reduction  of  Naval  Forces 

upon  the  Lakes cq 

V.  The  Canadian  Rebellion  and  Boundary  Questions. 
Tangled  Relations  and  Threatened  Armaments,  fol- 
lowed by  a  Period  of  Cordiality  and  Mutual  Reliance. 
1837-1861 gj 

VI.    Agitation  of  Lake  Defenses  During  the  American 

Civil  War.     Confederate  Operations  from  Canada  .    136 
VII.    After  THE  Storm.    1861-1896.     The  Adjustment  of  Irri- 
tating Questions  and  the  Continuation  of  the  Agree- 
ment of  1817 jgg 

VIII.    Index   .   .   . 

191 


>/  'i 


. 


m 


■t, 


-n!sfW«**i* 


PREFACE. 


In  May,  1895,  I  was  led  to  begin  this  study  of  the  "Neu- 
traHty  of  the  American  Lakes"  by  a  letter  of  Honorable  Ed- 
ward Atkinson  to  President  Daniel  C.  Gilman,  of  Johns 
Hopkins  University,  in  which  the  subject  was  proposed  for 
investigation,  and  by  a  subsequent  letter  from  Mr.  Atkinson, 
in  which  ho  referred  to  it  as  "one  of  the  most  suggestive 
events  in  our  history."  In  order  to  obtain  whatever  has  any 
bearing  upon  the  subject  and  its  connection  with  Anglo- 
American  relations,  I  have  carefully  examined  a  large 
amount  of  material.  Most  of  my  work  has  been  done  at  the 
Department  of  State  and  in  the  libraries  of  Washington,  D. 
C,  Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  Detroit,  Mich.,  and  Toronto,  Canada. 

The  principal  sources  of  the  material  upon  which  the  study 
is  based  are:  (i)  The  correspondence  in  the  Bureau  of 
Archives  and  Indexes  at  the  Department  of  State;  this 
includes  "Notes"  to  and  from  the  British  Legation  at  Wash- 
ington, "Instructions"  to  the  American  Legation  at  London, 
"Despatches"  from  the  American  Legation  at  London,  "Do- 
mestic" and  "Miscellaneous"  letters,  and  Consular  Reports: 
(2)  The  manuscript  letters  of  Jefferson,  Madison  and  Mon- 
roe in  the  Bureau  of  Rolls  and  Library;  (3)  Correspondence 
in  the  Record  Office  at  London;  (4)  J.  Q.  Adams'  "Me- 
moirs" and  "Castlereagh's  Correspondence;"  (5)  Reports  of 
Canadian  Archives ;  (6)  American  State  Papers ;  (7)  Govern- 
ment Documents;  (8)  Reports  of  debates  in  Congress;  (9) 
Parliamentary  debates;  (10)  American  and  Canadian  news- 
papers and  pamphlets,  and  the  London  Times.  Information 
has  also  been  gathered  from  correspondence  and  talks  with 
people  along  the  lakes  and  from  interviews  with  officials  in 
the  War,  Navy,  and  Treasury  Departments. 

For  valuable  suggestions  or  information  my  thanks  are 
due  to  Professor  H.  B.  Adams,  of  Johns  Hopkins  Univer- 


Preface. 

sity;  Hon.  J.  W.  Foster,  ex-Secrctary  of  State;  Mr.  Alvcy  A. 
Adcc,  Assistant  Secretary  of  State;  Mr.  Hubert  Hall,  of  the 
Record  Office,  London;  Hon.  F.  \V.  Seward,  formerly  As- 
sistant Secretary  of  State;  i\Ir.  B.  F.  Stevens,  of  London; 
Professor  IF  P,  Judson,  of  the  Univeri'ity  of  Chicago;  Mr. 
James  P.ain,  Jr.,  Chief  Librarian  of  the  Toronto  Public 
Library;  Professor  Goldwin  Smith,  of  Toronto;  ex-Con- 
gressman Geo.  E.  Adams,  of  Chicago;  Governor  IF  S.  Pin- 
gree,  of  Michifran;  Mr.  J.  N.  Larned,  of  the  Buffalo  Public 
Library;  Miss  Mary  Hawley,  of  the  Buffalo  Historical  Li- 
brary; Mr.  Silas  Farmer,  of  Detroit,  Mich.;  Mr.  W.  L. 
McCormick,  of  the  Marine  Record,  Cleveland,  C>hio;  the 
mayors  of  various  lake  cities,  and  others.  I  especially  desire 
to  acknowledge  the  courtesies  extended  by  Mr.  Andrew  H. 
Allen,  Chief  of  the  Bureau  of  Rolls  and  Library,  Mr.  S.  M, 
Hamilton,  Custodian  of  Archives,  and  Mr.  Pendleton  King, 
Chief  of  the  Bureau  of  Archives  and  Indexes,  in  ren- 
dering materials  accessible  and  in  furnishing  facilities  for 
furthering  my  researches  at  the  Department  of  State.  The 
ofificials  of  the  Foreign  Office  and  Record  Office  at  London 
have  also  assisted  me  in  securing  extracts  from  correspond- 
ence which  could  not  be  obtained  at  WashinsTton. 


Johns  Hopkins  University, 

Baltimore,  December,  1897. 


J.  M.  CALLAHAN. 


\ 


i 
i 

I 


i 


The  Neutrality  of  the  American  Lakes  and 
Anglo-American  Relations. 


I. 

INTRODUCTION. 

Tin-:  Amkuic.w   I'kace  Policy. 

The  majestic  St.  Lawrence — bearing  its  waters  over 
opMs.  by  tlie  sides  of  a  thousand  islands,  and  finally  into  the 
AnLintic — drains  a  system  of  lakes  which  has  been  a  grreat 
«l!<tterminin£^  factor  in  American  history.  Orifjinally  a  bar- 
trieir  between  Indian  tribes,  it  later  became  a  door  to  the 
interior  of  a  vast  continent,  a  highway  for  trade,  and  a 
SiwxirTtffary  between  two  civilized  nations.  Along  the  shores 
<cj|  these  lakes,  the  savagery  of  a  new  world  met  the  civiliza- 
ttSofli  of  an  old  one,  struggled  for  a  time  to  maintain  itself, 
thsm  retreated  before  the  ever-advancing  frontier  of  the 
Ant^IfO-Saxon.  Here,  two  powerful  European  peoples,  hos- 
tiJ*  by  long  tradition,  struggled  for  su])remacy.  The  final 
ooinitifict.  which  began  near  the  present  site  of  i'ittsburg.  de- 
drtJefl  that  the  English  should  occupy  the  land  and  that  the 
French  could  not  hold  it  vacant.  Scarcely  had  the  echoes  of 
ike  victory  of  Wolfe  over  Montcalm  at  Quebec  died  away 
w-fccm  the  first  sounds  of  the  .American  Revolution  came  to 
lie  heard.  The  Anglo-Saxon  had  not  won  for  England 
alone,  A  new  star  was  about  to  appear  in  the  galaxy  of 
maliioia.'j.  The  Hberty-loving  colonists  who  were  battling  with 
ih^  forests  and  making  a  new  life  south  of  the  lakes  claimed 
tht  right  to  govern  themselves  in  their  new  home.  After 
tight  years  of  opposition,  England  consented  in  1783.  and 
the  United  States  began  its  career,  with  the  lakes  as  its 
iKi/irttBiem  boundary.    The  young  nation  stood  upon  its  feet. 


mm 


10 


Nciitralitv  of  the  American  Lakes. 


\   \ 


ii 


growing  strong  in  power  and  resources,  putting  clown  insur- 
rections and  receiving  respect  abroad;  but  England  con- 
tinued to  hold  the  lake  posts  till  1796,  and  the  British  traders 
proposed  to  push  the  United  States  boundary  to  the  south  of 
the  lakes.  American  righto  in  the  Northwest  and  on  the 
Great  Lakes  were  not  entirely  assured  until  they  were  em- 
phasized by  fleets  and  diplomacy  in  the  War  of  1812. 

With  the  close  of  that  war  came  the  almost  imiversal  de- 
sire for  peace.  In  England,  a  few  wanted  to  send  Wellington 
to  America  to  direct  a  continuation  of  the  war.  In  America, 
a  few  favored  the  conquest  of  Canada.  Ikit  the  thinking 
people  received  the  news  of  peace  with  gladness.  Jefferson 
wrote  that  Quebec  and  Halifax  would  have  been  taken,  but 
that  peace  and  reconciliation  were  better  than  conquest  by 
war.  It  was  a  time  for  repression  of  passion  rather  than  for 
the  perpetuation  of  hatred.  Jefferson's  advice  concerning 
the  "inscription  for  the  Capitol  which  the  British  burnt"  was 
that  it  "should  be  brief  and  so  no  passion  can  be  imputed  to 
it."  The  same  spirit  is  seen  in  measures  advocated  by  Madi- 
son and  Monroe. 

The  leaders  of  the  hour  were  men  who  had  no  interest  to 
gain  at  the  expense  of  public  peace.  They  endeavored  to 
cultivate  an  intelligent  public  sentiment.  The  elements 
which  entered  into  their  public  actions  will  bear  the  close 
scrutiny  of  their  critics.  They  consulted  only  the  interests  of 
the  country  and  of  humanity,  and  gave  intelligent  guidance 
to  the  fundamental  good  sense  of  the  people. 

By  the  Treaty  of  Ghent,  concluded  amidst  the  festivities  of 
Christmas  Eve  in  18 14,  the  lake  boundary  and  the  Northwest 
were  secured  to  the  United  States,  and  the  gates  of  the  temple 
of  Janus  were  closed,  leaving  two  kindred  peoples  to  live 
under  separate  governments  on  opposite  sides  of  the  lakes. 
But  continued  peace  could  not  be  guaranteed  by  proclama- 
tion. There  was  no  great  danger  of  a  collision  directly 
with  the  powers  across  the  Atlantic ;  for  after  the  downfall  of 
Napoleon,  when  Europe  was  mourning  for  her  children,  and 
when  nature  and  art  had  been  blighted  and  defaced  by  war, 


hitroiudion — The  American  Peace  Policy. 


11 


there  was  a  reaction  against  the  idea  of  future  hostiHties. 
But  with  rival  navies,  recently  built  upon  the  lakes,  there  was 
clanger  of  future  collisions  in  that  quarter  which  might  also 
endanger  our  peace  with  England. 

While  Jefferson  was  trying  to  "eradicate  the  war  feeling 
which  the  newspapers  had  nourished,"  the  authorities  at 
Washington  applied  their  minds  to  secure  effective  arrange- 
ments which  would  lessen  the  possible  sources  of  future  mis- 
understanding and  accelerate  the  return  of  fraternal  feeling 
and  action.  They  saw  that  if  the  peace  was  merely  to  lead  to 
a  perpetual  race  in  naval  construction  such  a  peace  would 
only  be  temporary  and  expensive.  This  led  to  earnest  solici- 
tation, by  the  United  States,  to  secure  disarmament. 

During  the  war  each  party  had  struggled  to  secure  the 
control  of  the  lakes.  In  the  negotiations  for  peace  the  Brit- 
ish proposed  that  they  should  have  military  control  of  these 
waters,  and  thus  prevent  the  expense  of  rival  armaments. 
This  proposition  of  a  "one-sided"  disarmament  probably 
suggested  to  the  United  States  commissioners  the  idea  of 
making  it  mutual;  but  their  instructions  at  that  time  did  not 
permit  them  to  make  such  an  oiTcr.  as  past  conditions  had 
made  it  appear  necessary  for  the  United  States  to  keep  a 
superiority  of  naval  forces  on  the  lakes.  After  the  peace, 
however,  it  was  clear  that  mutual  disarmament  was  the  only 
assurance  against  collision  and  continued  sources  of  misun- 
derstanding. 

A  study  of  the  diplomacy  by  which  this  was  secured,  its 
immediate  wholesome  effect,  together  with  the  later  interna- 
tional relations  and  diplomatic  questions  that  have  influenced 
the  pulse  of  public  sentiment  and  are  in  any  way  connected 
with  the  subsequent  history  of  that  subject,  cannot  be  other- 
wise than  useful  to  a  nation  that  seeks  to  know  itself  in  order 
to  govern  itself  through  rclial)le  leaders.  , 

In  accordance'  with  instructions  from  the  United  States 
Government,  John  Ouincy  Adams  proposed  to  Lord  Castle- 
reagh,  at  London,  in  January,  1816,  that  some  measure  of 
this  kind  should  be  accepted  by  both  governments,  in  order 


■  1( 


12 


Neutrality  of  the  American  Lakes. 


to  avert  the  threatened  evil  of  rival  naval  forces  upon  the 
lakes.  Castlereaji^h  received  the  proposition  in  a  friendly 
spirit,  but  was  inclined  to  be  cautious.  After  fiery  speeches 
in  Parliament,  the  British  ministry  at  last  decided  to  meet 
the  proposition  "so  far  as  to  avoid  anything  like  a  contention 
between  the  two  parties."  Since  Mr.  Adams  had  been  piven 
no  instructions  as  to  the  precise  nature  of  the  proposed  ar- 
rangement, Lord  Castlereagh,  on  April  23,  1816,  instructed 
j\Ir.  Bagot  at  Washington  "to  take  ad  referendum  any  such 
proposal  as  the  American  Secretary  of  State  might  make." 

During  the  spring  and  summer  of  1816  Mr.  Monroe  was 
anxious  that  the  question  of  naval  forces  should  be  settled 
before  all  others.  The  action  of  British  officers  in  boarding 
American  vesseU-  made  it  the  foremost  question,  and  Presi- 
dent Madison  favored  a  "clean  sweep"  of  all  warlike  vessels, 
even  down  to  revenue  cutters.  But  Mr.  Bagot  could  not  be 
rushed.  He  finally  decided  to  open  negotiations,  and  on 
August  2  Mr.  Monroe  submitted  to  him  the  "precise  pro- 
ject." This  provided  for  limiting  the  force  on  the  lakes  to 
one  vessel  on  Lake  Champlain.  one  on  Lake  Ontario,  and 
two  on  the  upper  lakes,  each  of  100  tons  burden,  and  with 
one  eighteen-pound  cannon.  This  force  was  to  be  restricted 
in  its  duty  to  the  protection  of  the  revenue  laws,  the  trans- 
portation of  troops  and  goods,  and  such  other  services  as 
would  not  interfere  with  the  armed  vessels  of  the  other  party. 
Mr.  Bagot  avoided  discussions  upon  the  terms  proposed, 
but  he  suspected  that  the  United  States  had  some  secret 
object  in  making  the  restrictions  upon  the  vessels  to  be 
retained.  He  could  not  conclude  a  definite  arrangement 
until  he  had  submitted  the  matter  to  his  government,  but  was 
willing  to  give  effect  to  a  mutual  suspensioti  of  construction 
(except  where  it  was  necessary  to  complete  vessels  already 
begun). 

When  Mr.  Bagot's  letter  reached  England  the  cabinet  was 
scattered,  and  it  was  not  until  January,  1817,  that  Castle- 
reagh replied  that  they  were  ready  to  accede  to  the  proposi- 
tions of  Monroe.    The  delays,  surprises  and  uncertainties  in 


Introduction — The  Americayi  Peace  Policy. 


13 


the  negotiations  led  Mr.  Adams  to  fear  (in  November)  that 
the  Americans  were  simply  being  amused,  and  he  did  not  like 
to  be  made  a  fool.  But  the  growing  promptness  of  the  Brit- 
ish Government  had  already  become  apparent  in  the  orders 
which  were  sent  out  to  repress  the  conduct  of  British  offi- 
cers on  the  lakes. 

The  reciprocal  and  definite  reduction  of  these  forces  did 
not  occur  until  next  year,  and  after  Monroe  had  become 
President.  It  was  then  completed  by  the  exchange  of  notes 
between  Mr.  Bagot  and  Mr.  Rush,  who  was  acting  as  Secre- 
tary of  State  until  Mr.  Adams  should  arrive  from  London. 
This  agreement  became  effective  at  once,  though  there  is  no 
evidence  that  Great  Britain  gave  to  it  the  formalities  of  a 
treaty.'  It  was  not  till  a  year  later,  April,  1818,  that  Monroe 
formally  notified  the  Senate  of  the  arrangement,  and  ob- 
tainea  its  approval  and  consent,  after  which  it  was  declared 
by  the  President's  proclamation  to  be  in  full  force. 

It  provided  that  all  naval  vessels,  except  the  four  allowed 
by  the  agreement  (with  restricted  duties),  should  be  forth- 
with dismantled,  and  that  no  other  vessels  of  war  should  be 
built  or  armed  upon  the  lakes ;  but  it  was  also  provided  that 
either  party  could  abrogate  the  agreement  by  giving  six 
months'  notice. 

The  arrangement  made  no  provision  in  regard  to  revenue 
vessels,  but  both  parties  now  seem  to  consider  that  these  are 
not  a  part  of  the  navy  and  are  not  included  under  the  limita- 
tions of  the  agreement.  The  original  intention  of  President 
Madison  was  to  reduce  cutters  to  the  "minimum  of  size  and 
force,  if  allowed  at  all."  In  1857  and  1858  the  British  Gov- 
ernment evidently  considered  that  revenue  cutters  came 
within  the  limitations  of  the  agreement.  In  1864  Mr.  Seward 
was  "not  prepared  to  acknowledge  that  it  was  the  purpose  of 
the  agreement  to  restrict  the  armament  or  tonnage  of  ves- 
sels designed  exclusively  for  the  revenue  service."  '  In  1865, 


'  In  1864-5  ^otli  Seward  and  Palmervton  spoke  of  the  arrangement 
as  an  "  informal  "  one. 


11 


14 


Neutrality  of  the  American  Lakes. 


however,  Mr.  Seward,  in  reply  to  a  note  from  the  British 
minister  concerning  such  vessels,  stated  that  ''their  arma- 
ment, if  any,  will  not  be  allowed  to  exceed  the  limit  stipu- 
lated in  the  conventional  arrangements." 

Questions  have  arisen  at  different  times  as  to  whether  the 
agreement  applies  to  all  of  the  Great  Lakes.  In  1864  the 
Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  was  not  sure  that  it 
included  Lake  Erie  as  one  of  the  "upper  lakes."  When  the 
military  canal  from  the  Mississippi  to  Lake  ^Michigan  was 
proposed  to  Congress  during  the  Civil  War  there  was  some 
doubt  whether  this  lake  came  under  the  provisions  of  the 
agreement  of  1817.  The  agreement  has  not  only  been  treated 
as  applying  to  all  these  lakes,  but  it  would  probably  also  be 
interpreted  as  applicable  to  all  the  streams  which  flow  into 
the  various  lakes  included  in  its  provisions. 

By  the  construction  which  has  been  placed  upon  the  clause 
"no  other  vessels  of  war  shall  there  be  built  or  armed,"  the 
Navy  Department  has  refused  to  accept  the  bids  of  lake 
builders  for  naval  vessels  which  were  to  be  built  for  use  on 
the  ocean.  These  bids  could  have  been  accepted  under  the 
liberal  interpretation  that  a  hull  would  not  be  a  war  vessel 
until  after  she  had  received  her  armor  and  guns,  but  it  has 
not  been  thought  best  to  give  this  interpretation.  It  appears 
probable  that  the  Navy  Department  may  have  been  gui'Ieu 
in  its  action  chiefly  by  the  fact  that  the  vessels  after  being 
built  would  have  to  pass  through  a  long  stretch  of  exclusively 
Canadian  waters  in  order  to  get  them  to  the  sea.  Permis- 
sion has  been  readily  obtained  at  various  times  to  take  ves- 
sels through  these  waters,  but  it  has  probably  been  consid- 
ered a  bad  policy  to  ask  such  a  favor  of  a  neighboring  nation. 

It  was  the  impossibility  of  getting  the  vessels  from  the 
lakes  to  the  sea  that  made  it  necessary  to  dismantle  them 
there.  The  United  States  had  begun  to  reduce  the  expense 
of  her  fleet  soon  after  the  peace,  either  by  dismantling  or 
sinking  her  vessels.  Thus  had  perished  the  fleet  of  the  gal- 
lant Perry.  It  had  been  built  for  a  purpose.  It  had  served 
that  purpose.     Why  should  society  be  burdened  with  the 


Introduction —  The  American  Peace  Policy. 


15 


expense  of  keeping  it  longer?  It  had  been  the  servant  of  the 
people.  Why  should  the  people  now  become  servants  of  the 
fleet?  On  Lake  Chaniplain  all  vessels  had  already  been  laid 
up  at  White  Ilall.  On  Lake  Ontario  there  was  a  large  num- 
ber of  vessels,  but  most  of  them  had  been  laid  up  or  dis- 
mantled. Work  had  been  suspended  upon  the  large  ship 
Nczv  Orleans  of  seventy-four  guns.  The  work  of  dis- 
mantling or  sinking  was  now  continued.  Soon,  only  the 
pieces  of  hulks  were  left  as  a  reminder  of  the  former  warring 
fleets.  The  forces  on  each  side  declined  to  "almost  complete 
disappearance."  \\y  1825  public  vessels  had  practically  dis- 
appeared, both  parties  even  disregarding  the  maintenance 
of  the  force  which  had  been  allowed  by  the  agreement. 
Peace  existed  in  fact  as  well  as  in  theory. 

In  1837,  during  the  internal  troubles  in  upper  Canada, 
there  were  American  sympathizers  for  the  insurgent  cause, 
whose  indiscreet  action  threatened  for  awhile  to  endanger 
the  international  peace.  At  Bufifalo,  mendacious  speeches 
were  made,  and  a  few  persons  joined  the  rebels  at  Navy 
Island.  The  Caroline,  owned  by  American  citizens,  and 
engaged  to  carry  supplies  to  the  insurgents  on  the  island, 
was  captured  by  a  party  of  Canadians  and  burned.  Senti- 
ment and  excitement  were  aroused.  The  United  States  Gov- 
ernment took  steps  to  preserve  the  neutrality,  but  for  awhile 
there  was  an  increase  of  sympathy  for  the  insurgents,  some 
of  whom  found  refuge  south  of  the  lakes.  Border  feeling 
was  aggravated  by  other  controversies,  and  each  side  began 
to  inciuire  into  the  expediency  of  preparing  an  armed  force 
for  the  lakes.  The  British  at  first  hired  some  steamers  on  the 
lakes,  but  later  they  informed  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment that  on  account  of  threatened  invasion  they  found  it 
necessary  to  equip  temporarily  a  larger  force  than  was 
authorized  by  the  Agreement  of  1817.  No  objection  was 
made,  but  the  continued  reports  of  British  defenses  on  the 
lakes  attracted  the  attention  of  Congress,  and  in  1841  re- 
sulted in  an  appropriation  for  armed  vessels  on  the  lakes. 
Our  relations  with  Canada,  a  subject  of  intense  solicitude 


I. 


16 


Neutrality  of  the  American  Lakes. 


at  this  time,  in  a  few  months  became  much  more  satisfactory. 
The  British  force  was  soon  reduced  to  the  Hmit.  Neverthe- 
less, the  United  States  vessel,  the  Michigan,  which  had 
been  provided  for  by  the  appropriation  of  1841,  was  placed 
on  Lake  Erie  in  1843.  Her  size  and  armament  were  in 
excess  of  the  stipulations  of  1817,  and  this  fact  drew  a  re- 
monstrance from  the  British  minister,  but  it  was  urged  that 
changes  from  sail  to  steam  vessels  since  1817  justified  a 
revision  of  the  agreement  in  regard  to  the  size  of  vessels. 

After  the  brief  bluster  over  the  Oregon  quest)  n  there  was 
no  further  occasion  for  strained  relations,  and  the  growth  of 
cordial  feeling,  though  not  entirely  uninterrupted,  continued 
until  the  period  of  the  Civil  War.  For  many  years  the 
Michigan  was  the  only  public  vessel  in  use  upon  the  lakes. 

Anglo-American  relations,  which  before  1861  had  grown 
to  be  so  friendly,  were  severely  strained  by  several  events 
growing  out  of  the  Civil  War.  England  feared  that  her 
American  possessions  were  in  danger  from  the  growing 
power  of  the  United  States.  The  United  States  felt  that  Eng- 
land favored  the  Southern  Confederacy.  Each  began  to 
consider  the  defense  of  the  lake  frontier.  England  sent 
troops  to  Canada  in  June,  1861,  as  "a  mere  precaution."  She 
also  objected  to  the  United  States  steamer  Michigan  as 
being  larger  than  the  limit  of  181 7  for  lake  vessels.  The 
Trent  affair  brought  a  decrease  of  Union  sentiment  in 
Canada.  England  discovered  that  this  province  was  inde- 
fensible against  the  United  States,  but  committees  in  Con- 
gress recommended  shore  defenses  and  naval  depots  for  the 
lakes.  The  deflection  of  Western  commerce  from  the  Mis- 
sissippi to  the  East,  together  with  the  tangled  relations  with 
England,  led  to  petitions  for  canals  to  connect  the  lakes  with 
the  Mississippi  and  the  Hudson,  so  that  there  could  be  a 
procession  of  ironclads  to  the  lakes  if  occasion  demanded. 

From  the  latter  part  of  1863  till  the  close  of  the  war  the 
Confederate  agents  in  Canada  threatened  to  break  the  peace 
on  the  northern  frontier.  The  Canadian  authorities  did  not 
neglect  their  duty,  but  it  was  felt  that  they  should  have  a 


Inlrodudion —  The  American  Peace  Policy. 


17 


more  effective  system  of  repression.  There  were  no  British 
naval  vessels  on  the  lakes.  The  United  States  felt  the  need 
of  a  larger  naval  force  for  protection  in  that  quarter.  Mat- 
ters were  complicated  by  the  Canadian  canal  policy,  which 
was  not  considered  liberal  enough  to  justify  the  United 
States  in  continuing  the  Reciprocity  Treaty.  In  May,  1864,  a 
memljer  in  Congress  said  he  favored  making  a  clean  sweep 
of  all  treaties. 

The  crisis  came  in  September,  1864,  when  Confederate 
passengers  captured  a  steamer  and  unfurled  the  Confederate 
flag  upon  the  lakes.  Their  plot  to  strike  a  blow  at  Northern 
cities  failed,  but  this  attempt,  together  with  the  attack  upon 
St.  Albans,  Vt.,  in  October,  and  the  various  rumors  which 
followed,  kept  the  people  in  a  state  of  unhealthy  excitement 
and  gave  the  Fenians  a  hope  for  an  invasion  of  Canada. 

When  Congress  met,  five  new  revenue  cutters  were 
ordered  for  the  lakes.  The  Reciprocity  Treaty  and  the 
Agreement  of  1817  were  soon  abrogated.  Passports  were 
required  for  travelers  from  Canada.  Chandler  wanted  to 
send  troops  to  the  frontier. 

But  war  was  averted.  England  began  to  act  more 
promptly,  and  Canada  passed  a  more  effective  law  for  stop- 
ping Confederate  raids.  The  utterances  of  Fenians  and 
demagogues  gave  England  some  fear  that  Canada  would  be 
in  danger  at  the  close  of  the  American  war,  and  led  to  de- 
bates on  the  defenses  for  the  lakes.  Each  government,  how- 
ever, used  its  influence  to  counteract  the  effect  of  the  erro- 
neous ideas  which  had  found  permanent  record  on  the 
printed  page  in  both  countries. 

It  was  several  years  after  the  close  of  the  Civil  War  before 
the  questions  which  it  engendered  were  adjusted.  Various 
new  questions  also  have  arisen  from  time  to  time  and  have 
been  the  source  of  more  or  less  irritation.  Fenians  have 
threatened  to  carry  the  green  flag  into  Canada;  tariffs  have 
ruffled  the  feelings  of  people  on  the  border;  the  fisheries 
question  has  been  a  source  of  friction,  and  canal  tolls  have 
led  to  controversy  and  retaliatory  laws.    The  clash  of  inter- 


!W| 


N 

I 


18 


Nadrality  of  the  American  Lakes. 


ests  and  the  parade  of  words  have  at  tunes  produced  various 
psychological  changes  in  the  popular  sentiment,  but  there 
has  been  no  desire  by  either  party  to  create  a  system  of  rival 
defenses  on  the  lakes.  For  some  time  after  the  Fenian  inva- 
sion of  1866  it  appears  that  some  steamers  were  chartered 
by  the  Canadian  Government  and  fitted  up  as  temporary 
gunboats  for  service  on  the  St.  Lawrence  and  the  lakes,  to 
prevent  further  attempts  at  invasion.  The  Michigan  and 
a  revenue  cutter  were  sent  by  the  American  Government  to 
patrol  the  Niagara  river  for  awhile  in  1866.  Care  was  taken 
by  the  United  States  authorities  to  prevent  further  invasions, 
but  it  was  not  apprehended  that  any  other  vessels  would  be 
necessary.  It  seems  that  all  the  lake  revenue  cutters  belong- 
ing to  the  United  States  were  laid  up  in  1867.  They  were  still 
laid  up  in  1870  when  it  was  reported  that  there  were  plans 
for  an  invasion  of  Canada.  The  Michigan  was  kept  ready 
for  service  on  Lake  Erie,  but  no  invasion  occurred  in  that 
quarter.  There  was  an  attempted  invasion  from  Vermont 
during  the  summer  of  1870,  but  it  was  frustrated. 

The  Michigan  has  continued  to  cruise  the  upper  lakes 
since  that  time.  In  1878,  Secretary  Thompson,  of  the  Navy, 
suggested  the  advisability  of  sellinn;  her  and  applying  the 
proceeds  on  a  new  vessel  for  special  purposes,  but  Congress 
did  not  act  on  the  recommendation.  In  1890,  various  memo- 
rials and  petitions,  especially  from  Chicago,  asked  that  this 
antiquated  vessel  should  be  replaced  by  a  modern  one  that 
would  not  excite  the  ridicule  of  foreign  visitors  to  the 
World's  Fair;  but  these  memorials  were  left  to  sleep  in  the 
basement  of  the  Capitol,  and  there  was  placed  on  exhibition 
at  Jackson  Park  only  a  brick  model  of  a  ship  of  war.' 


'After  the  World's  Fair  this  briclc  model  was  turned  over  to  the 
.State  of  Illinois,  and  was  occupied  by  the  Naval  Militia  of  the  State. 
It  was  their  headquarters  durin*^  the  strike  of  1894,  when  they  patrolled 
the  harbor  in  boats,  in  order  to  protect  the  water  cribs,  which  it  was 
feared  the  strikers  mij2;ht  attempt  to  destroy  in  order  to  cut  oiT  the 
water  supply  of  the  city. 


'M 


ffi' 


'■"!!(• 


Introduction — The  American  Peace  Policy. 


19 


avy, 

the 

ress 

enio- 
this 
that 
the 

n  the 

)ition 


to  the 
State, 
rolled 
it  v%as 
.ff  the 


There  has  been  some  doubt  as  to  whether  the  arrange- 
ment has  been  in  existence  since  1865,  from  the  fact  that  in 
February  of  that  year  Congress  ratified  a  notice  for  its  ter- 
mination, which  had  been  given  some  time  before  by  the  Sec- 
retary of  State.  This  notice  was  afterward  withdrawn 
through  the  Department  of  State,  but  without  any  action  on 
the  part  of  Congress.  Secretary  Thompson,  of  the  Navy,  in 
1878  said  that  "whether  the  arrangement  remains  in  force 
since  1865  must  rest  upon  the  decision  of  Congress."  The 
State  Department  has  considered  it  as  still  in  force.  Con- 
gress would  probably  do  the  same.  In  1892  there  were  very 
few  members  in  Congress  who  would  have  voted  for  its 
abrogation. 

The  fact  that  the  Navy  Department  will  not  permit  ocean 
vessels  to  be  built  by  lake  builders  has  been  the  source  of 
some  complaint  in  recent  years.  In  1895,  w-hen  the  Detroit 
Dry  Dock  Company  failed  to  get  the  contract  to  build  gun- 
boats, for  which  it  had  made  the  lowest  bid,  there  was  a  gen- 
eral howl  from  the  newspapers  for  the  abrogation  of  the 
agreement.  An  appeal  was  made  to  President  Cleveland, 
tut  he  decided  that  no  naval  vessels  could  be  built  on  the 
lakes.  An  attempt  was  made  in  1895,  before  Congress  met 
in  December,  to  get  an  expression  of  public  sentiment  in 
favor  of  the  abrogation  of  the  Agreement  of  1817,  but  it  was 
unsuccessful.  It  was  considered  better  to  encourage  peace 
than  to  encourage  the  war-ship  industry  on  the  lakes. 

This  friendly  convention  of  1817,  which  had  the  effect 
practically  of  abolishing  rival  navies  upon  the  great  highway 
to  the  Northwest,  is  a  departure  from  many  of  the  old  and 
musty  maxims  of  diplomacy.  But  it  is  in  harmony  with  the 
new  spirit  of  the  new  times.  There  are  many  precedents  for 
the  neutralization  of  a  zone  along  a  land  boundary,  and  sev- 
eral instances  of  guaranteed  neutrality  of  small  States  or  ter- 
ritories,' but  there  is  no  precise  precedent  for  the  Agreement 


'Examples  are:  Switzerland,  Belgium,  Luxemburg,  Cracow,  and 
the  Ionian  Islands. 


v^ 


20 


Neutrality  of  the  American  Lakes. 


■ 

IliiUII 


of  1817. '  In  fact,  the  same  geographical  and  political  condi- 
tions that  obtain  in  regard  to  the  Great  Lakes  do  not  exist 
elsewhere.  No  other  great  lakes  have  formed  a  boundary 
between  great  States.  The  nearest  api)roach  is  Lake  Geneva 
and  the  Caspian  sea.  The  Crimean  war  resulted  in  the  neu- 
tralization of  the  Dlack  sea.''  Similar  conditions  may  at 
some  future  time  exist  on  Lake  \'ictoria  Xyanza,  in  Africa. 
Edward  y\.tkinson,  of  Boston,  says  of  this  arrangement 
that  it  is  "the  greatest  step  in  progress  toward  the  mainte- 
nance of  peace,  and  without  precedent  in  history."  Although 
it  was  secured  by  the  earnest  solicitation  of  the  United  States 
Government,  it  has  proven  to  be  equally  satisfactory  to  the 
British.  Mr.  Cobden,  who  once  sat  on  the  Naval  Com- 
mittee in  Parliament,  said  in  1850,  that  "from  the  moment 
of  the  existence  of  that  treaty  both  parties  have  totally  disre- 
garded the  maintenance  of  the  force  altogether,  and  there  is 
not  at  the  present  time  more  than  one  crazy  English  hulk  on 
all  these  lakes."  Mr.  Walsh,  in  a  speech  in  the  House  of 
Commons,  February  10,  spoke  of  the  arrangement  as  a 
"treaty  which  had  been  in  force  for  half  a  century,"  and 
stated  that  "to  it  must  be  attributed  the  peace  and  tranquillity 
which  during  that  period  has  e.\isted  between  the  two  coun- 
tries." The  London  Times,  of  the  same  year,  spoke  of  the 
Agreement  of  1817  between  the  two  great  kindred  conununi- 
ties  as  far  in  advance  of  the  spirit  of  that  age,  and  added 
that  "no  wiser  act  was  ever  agreed  upon  between  two  nations 
than  the  limitation  of  the  naval  force  on  the  lakes."  The 
sentiment  seems  almost  unanimous  that  from  the  standpoint 
of  international  relations  the  effect  of  the  agreement  has  been 

'A  convention  between  England  and  France,  in  January,  1787, 
provided  that  the  augmentation  of  naval  armaments  should  be 
mutually  discontinued. 

^  In  several  cases  it  has  been  proposed  to  extend  the  principle  of 
neutralization  to  rivers  ana  canals  bordering  on  the  territory  of  sev- 
eral states.  The  Rhitie  v.  as  neutralized  in  1815.  The  Ciayton-Buhver 
Convention,  in  1850,  guanvnteed  the  neutrality  of  the  proposed  Cen- 
tral American  Canal. 


Introduction — The  American  Peace  Policy. 


21 


|iple  of 

Df  sev- 

Julwer 

Cen- 


entirely  vvliolesome.  In  February,  1865,  Mr.  C.  F.  Adams, 
the  United  States  Minister  at  London,  in  a  conversation 
with  Lord  Russell,  said  that  armaments  are  expensive  and 
useless,  serving  in  troubled  times  to  breed  mutual  suspicion. 
He  saw  no  reason  why  we  should  not  continue  the  "full  reli- 
ance" of  half  a  century  under  the  Agreement  of  18 17,  which 
had  been  so  "highly  useful."  The  Canadians  are  also  satis- 
fied with  the  treaty.  James  Bain,  Jr.,  Chief  Librarian  at 
Toronto,  states  that  "the  agreement  has  worked  so  admir- 
ably tliat  it  seems  folly  to  dream  of  reviving  the  rivalry  of  the 
olden  times." 

The  fathers  "builded  even  better  than  they  knew."  The 
growth  of  the  Northwest  and  the  friendly  intermingling  of  the 
two  peoples  has  exceeded  their  greatest  hopes.  The  cities 
gathered  around  this  Western  Mediterranean  in  size  and  in- 
dustry far  excel  all  expectations.  Consider  the  magni'ude  of 
the  commerce  of  the  Great  Lakes.  In  1894  the  freight  borne 
upon  their  waters  during  234  days  exceeded  30,000,000  tons. 
This  is  one-fourth  as  much  as  the  total  freight  carried  by  all 
the  railroads  of  the  United  States  during  the  whole  year.  On 
June  30,  1894,  there  were  upon  the  lakes  1731  steam  vessels, 
1 139  sailing  vessels,  386  canal  boats  and  85  barges — a  total 
of  3341  craft,  with  a  gross  tonnage  of  1,227,400  tons.  Half 
of  the  best  steamship  tonnage  in  the  United  States  is  owned 
on  the  lakes.  Tlic  freight  which  passed  through  the  St. 
Mary's  Falls  Canal  in  1893  exceeded  by  3,137,504  tons  the 
entire  tonnage  of  all  the  world  that  passed  through  the  Suez 
Canal  in  that  year.  The  tonnage  which  passed  through  the 
Detroit  river  during  234  days  in  1889  was  nearly  two  and 
one-half  million  tons  more  than  the  entire  tonnage  which 
entered  and  cleared  at  London  and  Liverpool  for  that  whole 
year  in  the  foreign  and  coastwise  trade.  All  this  vast  com- 
merce, under  the  Monroe  policy  of  disarmament,  is  said  to 
be  as  well  protected  by  "mutual  reliance"  as  it  would  be  if 
millions  of  the  people's  earnings  were  expended  upon  naval 
armaments  and  forts.  Such  Monroe  doctrine  needs  no  bet- 
ter test  to  recommend  it.    During  periods  of  great  bitterness. 


22 


Neutrality  of  the  Americayi  Lakes. 


when  the  lakes  might  have  swarmed  with  gunboats,  it  has 
warded  off  the  storms  which  were  hable  to  follow  rapid 
changes  of  the  national  temperature.  This  true  Americanism 
of  Monroe  is  in  strict  conformity  with  the  foreign  policy  of 
all  our  earlier  Presidents.  It  is  the  spirit  which  animated 
Washington  to  write  in  his  Farewell  Address,  "Observe 
good  faith  and  justice  toward  all  nations;  cidtivate  peace  and 
harmony  with  all."  Tt  seeks  peace  with  honor,  and  does  not 
advocate  the  Donnybrook  I'air  principle  in  dii>lomacy,  that 
if  a  foreign  nation's  head  is  visible  we  should  hit  it. 

It  is  generally  conceded  that  the  experience  of  the  past 
justifies  the  continuance  of  the  agreement,  though,  of  course, 
subject  to  such  modifications  as  might  be  necessary  to  meet 
modern  conditions.  There  is  no  desire  to  depart  from  the 
spirit  and  principle  for  which  the  agreement  stands.  As  our 
modern  civilization  gets  farther  away  from  malignant  preju- 
dice and  bluster  we  are  less  inclined  to  waste  strength  in 
threatening  and  offensive  "defenses."  Time  has  shown  that 
there  is  little  danger  from  Canada.  England  has  long  since 
conceded  the  point  held  by  Mr.  Madison,  that  Canada  would 
be  of  no  advantage  to  her  in  case  of  war,  and  has  admitted 
that  she  cannot  compete  with  the  United  States  in  construc- 
ing  gunboats  on  the  lakes,  even  though  the  Wclland  canal 
should  give  her  a  temporary  advantage  in  case  of  possible 
future  hostilities.  The  Chicago  canal,  made  navigable  for 
gunboats  from  the  Alississippi,  would  be  analagous  to  the  St. 
Lawrence  and  Welland  canals,  but  England  would  still  have 
the  advantage  in  shortness  of  water  route  in  case  she  kept 
gunboats  in  the  vicinity  of  the  St.  Lawrence.  In  other  re- 
spects the  United  States  would  have  the  advantage. 

Nearly  eighty  years  have  passed  away  since  the  agreement 
was  signed.  The  Northwest  has  changed  from  a  wilderness 
to  great  and  prosperous  States.  Great  cities  along  the  lakes 
have  sprung  up  and  become  the  rivals  of  the  capitals  of  Eu- 
rope. Empires  have  risen  and  fallen,  great  battles  have  been 
fought,  and  boundary  lines  of  nations  swept  from  the  world. 
But  during  this  time,  notwithstanding  occasional  waves  of 


IRI'i 


t 


ittcd 

struc- 

canal 

jssible 

e  for 

U"  St. 

liave 

kept 

er  re- 

:;mcnt 
;rness 

lakes 

^f  Eu- 

bccn 

vorld. 

/cs  of 


I 


■I 
■'I 


:' 


fntrodiution —  T/w  American  Peace  Policy 


23 


on  both  sides  of  the  fresh-water  sea,  the  people  have 
been  attracted  more  and  more  to  each  other,  and  the  sharp- 
ntia  of  border  lines  has  been  softened  by  the  courtesy  and 
gOKxI-will  which  govern  the  social  and  business  relations  of 
the  two  countries.  The  old  border  feeling  has  lost  its  inten- 
sity in  old  Canada,  and  in  Manitoba  it  does  not  exist. 
WTiether  Canada  shall  continue  the  connection  with  Eng- 
hiMf,  or  shall  desire  to  work  out  her  destiny  as  an  independ- 
ent nation,  the  United  States  has  no  designs  against  her 
peace  and  prosperity.  Our  sympathies  will  continue  to  have 
vvyTt  in  common  than  in  opposition.  The  people  from  dif- 
fertnc  sides  of  the  lakes  have  no  quarrel  over  the  past  when 
tbej'  meet  at  sunmicr  resorts.  Uncontrollable  and  unreas- 
omiaMe  sentiment  has  sometimes  asserted  itself  in  a  hos'.ile 
manneT,  but  friendly  feelings  have  continued  to  subsi'^t  in 
qwte  of  commercial  and  national  difTerences.  The  jingoism 
of  those  who  are  always  making  mental  preparations  for  war 
has  forced  itself  into  notoriety  at  times,  but  it  is  on  the  wi:ne. 
Antitioial  attempts  to  resurrect  the  prejudices  of  earlier  days 
Kmly  atrve  as  an  object-lesson  of  the  earlier  stages  of  civiliza- 
tjon,  which  modern  society  has  not  yet  entirely  laid  aside. 

The.  mental  coolness  which  once  existed  between  the  peo- 
ples separated  by  the  lakes  has  abated.  The  ancient  pas- 
ski'im  Bus  died  away,  and  the  only  coolness  that  now  normally 
<•:■:  ■-  IS  the  coolness  of  the  fresh  waters  themselves  which 
itjjiirace  the  territories,  but  are,  at  the  same  time,  serving  a5  a 
Iwgfliway  of  trade  and  social  commingling  to  unite  the  nations 
im  21  brotherhood  of  common  feeling. 

TTie  policy  of  the  two  great  English-speaking  peoples  in 
regaM  to  the  American  lake  boundary,  to  which  has  been 
allriLtrted  the  peace  that  has  continued  to  exist  in  spite  of 
di^Mittes,  is  a  precedent  w.^rthy  of  the  study  of  other  nations. 
OvtTj^Town  standing  armies  and  floating  navies  are  often  a 
source  as  well  as  a  product  of  war.  Air.  Freeman  called 
theira  "the  modern  abomination."  An  armed  peace  not  only 
fr<))'Hnn&  defiance,  but  its  expense  inflicts  upon  nations  the 
cMTse  or  poverty.    Some  preparation  for  war,  with  the  least 


'Ill 


24 


Neidrality  of  the  American  Lakes. 


possible  sacrifice  of  the  advantages  of  peace,  seems  neces- 
sary, but  it  is  plainly  an  unnecessary  waste  of  force  and  a 
hard  burden  for  society  when  one-fifth  of  the  flower  of  Chris- 
tian Europe  is  set  aside  to  make  ready  for  war.  It  would  be 
far  better  to  depend  more  upon  the  militia.  In  1850,  Sir 
Robert  Peel  said:  "We  should  best  consult  the  true  interests 
of  the  country  by  husbanding  our  resources  in  a  time  of 
peace,  and,  instead  of  lavish  expenditure  on  all  the  means  of 
defense,  by  placing  some  trust  in  the  latent  and  dormant 
energies  of  the  nation."  In  the  same  year  Cobden  said: 
"Four  million  of  men,  the  flower  of  Europe,  ,  .  .  are  under 
arms,  living  in  idleness.  .  .  .  The  women  are  doing  farm 
work  in  order  that  the  muscle  and  strength  of  the  country 
should  be  clothed  in  military  coats  and  should  carry  muskets 
on  their  shoulders."  Here  is  a  double  loss  to  society.  These 
several  million  men  have  to  be  supported  by  those  who  are 
in  the  industrial  pursuits.  If  the  army  were  swept  away  by  a 
plague  it  would  only  be  a  single  loss.  If  both  army  and  those 
who  work  to  support  it  were  swept  away  society  would  be 
none  the  worse,  from  a  material  point  of  view. 

Besides  the  cost,  the  whole  moral  tendency  of  vast  "peace 
establishments"  is  bad.  If  a  man  walks  abroad  armed  to  the 
teeth  he  is  very  liable  to  get  into  a  quarrel;  so  with  a  nation. 
Social  manners  have  been  benefited  by  a  general  disarma- 
ment of  individuals.  So  the  public  tone  might  be  benefited 
by  the  disbanding  of  overgrown  armies  and  the  employment 
of  navies  in  peaceful  commerce.  The  maxim,  "In  time  of 
peace  prepare  for  war,"  is  transmitted  from  distant  ages, 
when  brute  force  was  tlie  general  law.  It  is  a  dogma  of  bar- 
barism, which  the  searchlight  of  modern  civilization  has  not 
yet  entirely  illumined.  But  wc  are  learning  by  experience 
that  peace  begets  peace,  while  growls  beget  growls,  and  men- 
ace begets  menace.  We  can  say  as  jNIr.  Disraeli  did  in  1859: 
"Let  us  terminate  this  disastrous  system  of  rival  expenditure, 
and  mutually  agree,  with  no  hypocrisy,  but  in  a  manner  and 
under  circumstances  which  can  admit  of  no  doubt — by  a  re- 
duction of  armaments — that  peace  is  really  our  policy." 


Introduction — The  American  Peace  Policy. 


25 


Before  our  country  had  evolved  to  a  "more  perfect  union," 
the  Articles  of  Confederation  provided  that  disputes  be- 
tween States  should  be  determined  by  commissioners  se- 
lected by  the  disputants,  or  by  Congress.  This  was  better 
than  for  each  State  to  have  kept  a  large  army  and  navy.  If 
nations  do  not  find  it  expedient  to  bind  themselves  to  a  policy 
like  this,  reduction  of  armaments  must  nevertheless  become 
more  and  more  the  world's  policy.  Through  the  ages  we 
have  learned  to  lessen  both  the  occasions  and  the  severities 
of  war.  It  has  been  a  gradual  movement;  but  the  current 
of  history  cannot  be  reversed.  The  shadow  cannot  be  made 
to  go  back  on  the  dial.  A  sentiment  in  favor  of  reduction  of 
armaments  has  been  gradually  developing.  If  England  and 
the  United  States  could  disarm  upon  the  lakes  after  the  War 
of  1812,  and  if  four  European  nations  could  make  similar 
provisions,  after  the  Crimean  war,  respecting  armaments  upon 
the  Black  sea,  is  it  not  possible  in  time  of  peace  to  apply  the 
principles  of  these  treaties  on  a  larger  scale  and  provide  for 
a  general  disarmament  in  Europe?  The  political  and  eco- 
nomic effect  could  not  ultimately  be  otherwise  than  good. 
Professor  Von  Hoist  says  that  the  European  nations  will  be 
forced  to  abandon  their  expensive  armaments  in  order  to 
keep  up  with  the  progress  which  the  United  States  is  making 
without  them. 

The  intellects  and  hearts  of  the  nations  are  outgrowing 
the  theory  that  national  disputes  can  only  be  settled  by  the 
sword.  The  result  of  the  Geneva  arbitration  has  shown  that 
they  can  be  settled  otherwise.  The  law  of  hate  is  yielding  to 
the  law  of  love.  Every  year  makes  it  more  apparent  among 
nations  that  the  best  interests  of  all  will  be  served,  not  by 
mutual  antagonism,  but  by  co-operation  and  mutual  service. 
The  discoveries  of  the  past  have  gradually  revealed  the  limit- 
lessness  of  the  world's  resources,  and  demonstrated  that  all 
the  nations  are  parts  of  "one  body,"  and  that  the  foot  cannot 
say  to  tlic  hand,  "I  have  no  need  of  thee."  This  is  the  lesson 
of  modern  conmierce.  Civilization  is  the  accumulated  labor 
of  all  the  world  through  mutual  service  and  concord,  as  well 


It!  l'\  I 


1 ' '.; 


26 


Neutrality  of  the  Avierican  Lakes. 


<i 


as  the  result  of  struggling  interests  and  passions.  The  ani- 
mosities between  the  various  early  races  in  England  and  be- 
tween the  various  provinces  in  France  have  died  out.  The 
new  wine  of  national  life  long  since  broke  the  old  bottles  of 
the  feudal  system  and  it  passed  away.  So  the  broad  spirit 
of  the  new  age  is  leading  men  to  let  their  love  for  mankind 
extend  farther  than  the  few  hills  or  the  little  water  that  hap- 
pens to  lie  between  the  tribes  of  one  great  family  of  people. 
We  can  love  humanity  more  without  loving  home  and  coun- 
try less.  No  set  of  men  should  get  the  idea  that  the  world 
was  made  for  their  special  benefit. 

The  new  epoch  is  here.  Each  generation  profits  by 
the  reservoired  results  of  past  centuries.  Unconquerable 
time  works  on  unceasingly.  There  is  no  rest.  What  has 
been,  does  not  always  have  to  be.  Past  experience  is  ad- 
justed to  the  needs  of  the  present  and  future.  Slowly  but 
surely  the  nations  are  being  brought  nearer  to  one  another. 
The  progress  of  one  reacts  for  good  upon  the  other.  A  soli- 
darity of  commercial  interests  has  been  created.  Thought 
has  been  made  virtually  omnipresent.  Submarine  telegraphs 
obviate  much  bitterness  by  the  prompt  contradiction  of  false 
reports.  Travel  has  made  men  more  tolerant.  The  hin- 
drances and  barriers  that  lay  between  nations  are  disappear- 
ing. Industrial  and  intellectual  and  social  threads,  stronger 
than  the  mere  paragraphs  of  treaties,  connect  all  men.  No 
changed  condition  upon  any  part  of  the  periphery,  but  it  af- 
fects all  ganglia  which  regulate  national  life.  No  nation 
lives  to  itself.  More  and  more  the  members  of  the  European 
family  of  nations  are  coming  to  a  clear  understanding  among 
themselves  and  about  themselves.  As  they  become  more 
and  more  conscious  of  their  world  relations,  we  can  look  to 
the  changed  spirit  of  the  age  rather  than  to  any  mechanical 
device  for  the  maintenance  of  peace.  There  will  be  a  victory 
of  the  peace-makers  over  the  war-makers.  Progress  will  be 
more  and  more  accompanied  by  the  absence  of  duplicity  and 
Machiavellianism  in  diplomacy,  by  the  "mutual  reliance"  of 
neighboring  nations,  and  by  the  principles  of  justice  and 
right. 


II. 


false 

hin- 

)pear- 

onger 

No 

taf- 

ation 

)pcan 

ong 

lore 

k-  to 

iiical 

tory 

Ibe 

and 

"of 

and 


THE  NORTHERN  LAKE  BOUNDARY  OF  A  NEW 
AMERICAN  NATION. 

Conditions  Which  Led  to  the  Treaty  of  1783. 

Some  part  of  the  inland  waterways  which  stretch  along 
our  northern  border  was  the  scene  of  warlike  movement  from 
a  time  previous  to  the  first  discovery  of  Lake  Champlain  till 
the  close  of  the  War  of  181 2. 

Champlain  found  the  Ilurons  fighting  the  Iroquois.  His 
injudicious  interference  in  their  quarrels  served  afterwards 
as  a  factor  in  extending  English  influence  toward  the  Great 
Lakes,  and  induced  the  French  to  push  their  discoveries 
along  the  western  part  of  these  waters  and  into  the  country 
drained  by  the  Mississippi  and  its  branches.  The  French 
thus  obtained  control  of  the  fur  trade  of  the  upper  lake 
region.  But  the  Iroquois  found  it  profitable  to  carry  beavers 
of  the  Northwest  to  the  English  at  Albany.  So  they  deter- 
mined to  wage  war  against  the  Indian  tribes  of  the  upper 
lakes,  to  seize  Mackmaw,  and  to  drive  away  the  French,  in 
order  to  get  this  trade  into  their  hands.'  But  their  attempt 
was  unsuccessful.  The  English,  too,  had  begun  to  establish 
posts  in  the  Northwest  in  the  region  of  Mackinaw,  and  it  be- 
came evident  to  the  French  that  the  Iroquois  were  the  mere 
agents  of  the  English.  English  traders  were  passing  back 
and  forth  between  Albany  and  Lake  Ontario,  and  their  trade 
with  the  Iroquois  was  increasing.  The  French  in  Canada 
saw  that  in  order  to  retain  a  monopoly  of  the  fur  trade  they 
must  destroy  the  source  of  supply  to  the  Iroquois.  Thus 
grew  up  the  question  of  whether  France  or  England  should 

'  Winsor  :  Narrative  and  Critical  History,  Vol.  4. 


■  i 

1 


28 


Neutrality  of  the  American  Lakes, 


I' 


control  the  lakes  and  the  Northwest,  and  the  conflict  between 
the  Indian  tribes  was  transferred  to  two  great  nations.' 

Soon  after  the  colonization  movement  west  of  the  moun- 
tains began,  the  English  were  thrown  into  contact  with  the 
French  in  the  region  between  the  Ohio  river,  the  Mississippi 
river  and  the  Great  Lakes.  The  contemplation  of  future 
possibilities  was  awakening  the  consciousness  of  the  English 
people  as  to  the  importance  of  this  region  and  of  the  Great 
Lakes.  The  French  had  the  advantage  of  first  settlement, 
but  Anglo-Saxon  determination  was  invincible  in  the  estab- 
lishment of  new  homes  beyond  the  mountain  barriers.  The 
last  great  conflict  between  France  and  England  in  America 
was  at  hand.  It  was  a  final  struggle  for  supremacy  on  the 
new  continent.  Many  of  the  scenes  of  that  war  were  upon 
the  lakes.  They  we*  '^  *ound  important  in  war  as  well  as  in 
peace.  It  was  by  descending  the  St.  Lawrence  from  Lake 
Ontario  in  1760  that  Amherst  rendered  it  impossible  for  the 
French  to  retire  westward  from  Montreal,  and  to  prolong 
the  war  on  the  shores  of  the  lakes.'  Securing  control  of  the 
lakes  was  a  vast  step  toward  the  realization  of  the  victory  by 
which  England  was  given  control  of  all  the  territory  west  of 
the  Mississippi  and  north  of  the  Great  Lakes. 

But  England  achieved  the  conquest  of  the  Ohio  valley  not 
for  herself.  She  was  simply  the  trustee  through  whom  it  was 
transferred  "from  the  France  of  the  ^Middle  Ages"  to  the  free 
people  who  were  n'-alcing  for  luunanity  a  new  life  in  America. 
It  was  for  the  liberty-loving  colonist  that  it  had  been  won. 
He  had  battled  with  the  forest,  and  won  it  for  the  masses  of 


'  In  llie  debates  of  the  Congress,  at  Albany,  in  1754,  it  was  held 
that  the  country  of  the  five  cantons  of  the  Iroquois  was  acknowl- 
edged by  the  treaty  of  Utrecht  to  be  under  the  dominion  of  Great 
Bn'tain,  tiiat  Lake  Champlain,  .  .  .  Lake  Ontario,  Lake  Erie,  and 
all  the  countries  adjacent  had  been  admitted  by  all  to  belong  to  the 
Five  Nations,  and  tliat  the  whole  of  those  countries  long  before  the 
treaty  <  f  Utrecht  had  been  put  under  the  protection  of  the  crown  of 
Great  Britain,  for  the  sake  of  commerce. 

■^Varburton  :  Conquest  of  Canada,  Vol.  2,  p.  375. 


i 


■1 


Northern  Boundary  of  a  New  Natiofi. 


29 


.■% 

.■■>. 


Hit 


a 


population  which  were  to  follow.  He  had  pushed  the  border 
westward,  so  that  the  possibilities  of  the  future  might  be  seen. 
He  was  working  out  the  problem  that  others  had  talked 
about. 

Intercourse  with  the  West  and  Northwest  was  now  more 
important  than  before.  The  project  of  an  improved  water 
communication  between  the  Hudson  and  Lake  Ontario,  by 
way  of  natural  streams  and  the  carrying  places,  for  the  ad- 
vancement of  Indian  trade,  was  discussed.  Washington  had 
made  observations  which  caused  his  mind  to  appear  "ab- 
sorbed and  devoted  to  the  mighty  object  of  forming  a  navi- 
gable intercourse  with  the  Western  country  and  the  lakes." 
He  thought  the  fur  trade  could  be  drawn  toward  the  Poto- 
mac' 

But  it  was  not  till  after  the  Revolution  that  these  ideas  of 
closer  connection  with  the  West  were  to  be  realized. 

When  the  idea  of  independence  from  the  rule  of  England 
had  become  a  part  of  the  consciousness  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States  in  1776  there  was  no  accurately  defined  limit 
to  the  territories  of  the  new  nation.  The  Quebec  Act  of  1774 
had  declared  the  country  between  the  Ohio  and  the  Great 
Lakes  to  be  a  part  of  Canada.  The  new  States  had  a  good 
reason  to  claim  Western  lands;  but  the  land  north  of  the 
Ohio  was  de  facto  a  part  of  Canada.  The  marching  of  an 
army  into  it  was  really  an  invasion  of  Canada,  and  this  was 
not  favored  by  the  Continental  Congress  at  the  beginning  of 
the  Revolution.''  After  Ethan  Allen  took  the  fortified  places 
on  the  borders  of  Lake  Champlain,  and  the  armed  sloops 
and  boats  upon  its  waters,  he  suggested  to  the  New  York 
Congress  that  this  key  should  be  held,  and  that  "if  the  colo- 
nists would  push  two  or  three  thousand  men  into  Canada 
they  might  make  a  conquest"  of  it.  He  spoke  of  the  value  of 
establishments  upon  the  frontier  farther  north.  But  the  New 
York    Congress    had   disavowed  hostile  intentions  against 


'  R.  Mills  :  Inland  Navigation,  p.  7. 
"Sparks  :  Life  of  G.  Morris,  Vol.  i,  p.  54. 


I    i 


80 


Neutrality  of  the  American  Lakes. 


i 


Canada,  and  it  now  assured  her  so  by  letter.  The  Conti- 
nental Congress  gave  the  same  assurance.  But  in  less  than 
three  months,  after  the  battle  of  Bunker  Hill  had  helped  to 
ripen  the  aggressive  spirit  of  the  nation,  an  expedition  was 
ordered  against  Canada.  It  might  have  been  a  success  when 
Allen  wrote,  but  it  proved  a  failure  at  the  time  it  was  planned. 
Canada  was  at  first  disposed  to  be  neutral,  but  finally  took  up 
the  British  cause.  The  clergy  were  against  the  American 
cause. 

But  the  Americans  were  more  successful  in  their  attempt 
to  conquer  the  territory  between  the  Ohio  and  the  lakes. 
Clarke  succeeded  in  the  Northwest,  whereas  Arnold  and 
Montgomery  failed  in  the  North.  The  British  were  fully 
awake  to  the  importance  of  holding  the  region  between  the 
Ohio  river  and  the  lakes.  After  Spain  declared  war  against 
Great  Britain  (May  8,  1779),  Lord  George  Germain,  Secre- 
tary for  the  Colonies,  wrote  General  Haldimand  of  it,  and 
ordered  him  to  reduce  the  Spanish  posts  on  the  Mississippi.' 
This  was  the  last  concerted  action  of  the  British  to  regain 
possession  of  the  West,  and  it  failed  on  account  of  the  activity 
of  the  Spaniards  under  Governor  Galvez,  and  through  the 
energy  of  Colonel  Clarke.  If  this  Western  scheme  of  the  Brit- 
ish had  been  successful  the  country  north  of  the  Ohio  might 
have  remained  a  part  of  Quebec.  If  this  had  been  the  con- 
dition in  1782  it  is  quite  probable  that  the  United  States 
would  have  been  shut  out  from  the  lakes  and  the  Mississippi. 
Thomas  Jefferson  saw  the  importance  of  C  ^rke's  expedition 
to  the  Wabash  before  it  was  made,  and  wrote  that  if  it  proved 
successful  it  would  "have  an  important  bearing  ultimately  in 
establishing  our  Northwestern  boundary."  America  had 
begun  to  look  forward  to  her  "manifest  destiny"  in  the  North 
and  West.    France  feared  this. 

The  French  always  had  fears  of  the  American  love  of  con- 
quest. In  1778,  in  discussing  an  attack  on  Canada,  the 
French  ministers  discouraged  it.    Turgot  had,  as  earlv  as 

'  Winsor  :  Narrative  and  Critical  History,  Vol.  6. 


Northern  Boundary  of  a  Nexv  Nation. 


81 


Icon- 

the 

v  as 


1776,  looked  for  the  repossession  of  Canada  by  France  in 
case  the  colonies  succeeded.  It  seems  to  have  been  the  set- 
tled policy  of  the  French  court  from  the  beginning  to  prevent 
the  United  States  from  getting  Canada.  Mr.  Alorris  saw  that 
France  favored  Spain  by  wanting  Canada  to  be  held  by  the 
British,  so  the  United  States  would  be  diverted  from  Spanish 
territory,  and  he  said  it  was  useless,  for  both  England  and 
the  United  States  would  be  hostile  to  Spain.  He  thought 
England  w-ould  be  master  of  the  lakes  and  a  natural  friend  of 
the  Americans. 

Though  Spain  rendered  valuable  service,  by  helping  Clarke 
to  hold  the  land  he  had  conquered  until  the  treaty  was  drawn 
up,  she  did  this  through  no  unselfish  motive.  In  1779  Spain 
had  wished  that  the  Northwest  should  be  guaranteed  to  Eng- 
land.* In  her  engagement  with  France  to  assist  in  the  war 
against  England  she  had  demanded  a  stipulation  that  left  her 
free  to  exact  from  the  United  States,  as  the  price  of  her 
friendship,  a  renunciation  of  every  part  of  the  basin  of  the 
St.  Lawrence  and  the  lakes,  of  the  navigation  of  the  Missis- 
sippi, and  of  all  the  land  between  that  river  and  the  Allegha- 
nies.  Spain  thought  of  laying  claim  to  all  the  territory  west 
of  the  mountains  and  south  of  the  lakes.  It  was  her  ambition 
that  induced  her  to  say  that  the  royal  proclamation  of  Octo- 
ber 8,  1763,  kept  the  United  States  from  having  any  territo- 
rial rights  west  of  the  AUeghanies. 

Thus,  at  the  close  of  the  Revolution,  the  basin  of  the  lakes 
remained  British,  and  Spain  had  her  eye  upon  the  entire 
region  west  of  the  AUeghanies.  It  took  diplomatic  skill  to 
extend  our  limits  to  the  lakes. 

The  question  of  what  should  be  our  boundaries  had  been 
discussed  in  Congress  at  various  times  before  the  close  of 
the  war.  In  a  report  of  a  committee  of  Congress,  February 
23,  1779.  it  was  stated  that  certain  articles  necessary  for 
safety  and  independence  should  be  insisted  upon.  Concern- 
ing the  northern  boundary,  it  proposed  "the  ancient  limits 


'  Bancroft,  Vol.  5,  p.  325. 


if '' 


32 


Neutrality  of  the  American  Lakes. 


of  Canada,  as  contended  for  by  Great  Britain,  running 
from  Nova  Scotia  southwesterly,  west,  and  nortlnvcsterly,  to 
Lake  Nipissing,  thence  a  west  Hne  to  the  Mississippi."  On 
March  19,  1779,  Congress  agreed  to  an  tiltimatum  similar  to 
this  line.  The  line  from  Lake  Nipissing  was  to  run  from  the 
south  point  of  the  lake  to  the  source  of  the  Mississippi.  If 
the  source  of  the  Mississippi  had  been  as  far  north  as  the 
Lake  of  the  Woods,  as  it  was  supposed  to  be.  Great  Britain 
would,  by  this  line,  have  been  excluded  from  all  the  lakes 
except  Superior. 

In  the  instructions  of  Congress,  August  14,  1779,  to  the 
minister,  it  was  stated  that  "if  the  line  from  Nipissing  to  the 
Mississippi  cannot  be  secured  without  war,  you  may  agree 
to  some  other  line  not  south  of  45°."  John  Adams  received 
the  appointment  as  minister  September  27,  1779,  and  went  to 
France,  but  official  influence  there  was  thrown  against  the 
initiation  of  a  treaty  at  that  time.  His  commission  was  an- 
nulled by  Congress  June  15,  1781,  and  he  was  appointed  one 
of  five  conmiissioncrs  to  negotiate  a  treaty.  This  commis- 
sion was  not  tied  up  by  absolute  directions,  and  did  not 
always  follow  such  general  directions  as  had  been  given  it, 
but  by  wise  diplomacy  it  secured  better  terms  in  the  treaty 
than  Americans  had  dared  to  expect  in  1781  at  the  time  of 
Cornwallis'  invasion  of  Virginia. 

It  is  not  within  the  scope  of  this  chapter  to  enter  into  the 
interesting  details  of  the  many  discussions  and  arguments  at 
Madrid  and  at  Paris,  or  even  to  mention  all  the  proposed 
boundaries.  It  can  only  notice  the  main  features.  The  atti- 
tude of  England  was  largely  influenced  by  questions  relating 
to  Spain  and  France,  and  was  not  clearly  defined  from  the 
beginning. 

At  one  time  in  1782  there  was  a  strong  probability  of  the 
cession  of  all  Canada  to  the  United  States.  In  a  conversa- 
tion in  April  of  that  year,  Franklin  and  Oswald  agreed  that 
occasions  for  future  wars  should  be  removed.'    They  saw  that 


ti* 


'  Wharton  :  Diplomatic  Correspondence  of  the  Revolution,  Vol.  5, 
pp.  540  and  541. 


Northern  Boundary  of  a  New  Nation, 


S3 


settlers  along  the  long  frontier  were  constantly  furnishing 
matter  for  fresh  differences.  Franklin  proposed  that  it  would 
have  a  good  effect  if  England  would  voluntarily  offer  to  give 
up  Canadian  provinces  on  condition  of  being  allowed  free 
trade  with  them.  He  thought  that  if  England  kept  Canada, 
the  United  States  would  have  to  strengthen  her  union  with 
France.  But  popular  opinion  in  England  was  probably 
against  giving  up  Canada,  and  the  influence  of  other  events 
made  the  ministry  more  determined  to  hold  this  territory. 
The  effort  to  secure  the  Ohio  as  the  southern  boundary  was 
resisted  by  both  Adams  and  Jay.  At  the  same  time,  our 
ministers  could  expect  better  terms  from  England  than  they 
could  hope  to  get  from  France  and  Spain,  who,  it  appears, 
would  have  ''cooped  up"  the  United  States  between  the  Alle- 
ghanies  and  the  sea  if  they  could  have  done  so.  This  led  to 
secret  communication  with  the  English  ministers,  contrary 
to  the  expectation  of  Vergennes,  the  French  minister.  Ver- 
gennes  had  hopes  of  getting  Canada  for  the  French.  Lafay- 
ette wanted  it  for  the  United  States. 

Although  Oswald  favored  articles  which  gave  the  United 
States  control  of  the  lakes,  the  British  ministry  would  not 
assent;  and  when  the  American  ministers  proposed  either 
the  line  of  45°  or  the  line  through  the  lakes,'  the  British 
ministers  chose  the  latter.  Fortunately  for  us,  their  prefer- 
ence for  a  water  boundary  caused  them  to  recognize  the 
Great  Lakes  as  our  northern  frontier.  Doubtless,  <^he  British 
ministry  saw  that  there  was  danger  of  Spain's  getting  the 
territory  south  of  the  lakes,  and  preferred  to  let  the  United 
States  have  it.  Perhaps  neither  England  nor  Spain  regarded 
the  Treaty  of  Paris  as  final.  It  is  not  improbable  that  the  war 
of  1812  revived  English  hopes  of  recovering  the  control  of 
the  lakes  and  the  region  south  of  them.  The  refusal  of  Eng- 
land to  surrender  the  posts  which  she  held  south  of  the  lakes 
at  the  close  of  the  war  shows  the  reluctance  with  which  she 
agreed  to  the  boundaries. 


'  6  Sparks'  Diplomatic  Correspondence  of  the  Revolution,  Nov.  6, 
1782. 
3 


84 


Neutrality  of  the  American  Lakes. 


Tlicre  were  English  who  beheved  that  the  "Northwest 
Territory  should  never  have  been  ceded  to  the  United 
States."  One  writer  said  the  cession  was  due  to  Oswald's 
ignorance  of  geography.  In  fact,  for  several  years  before 
Jay's  treaty,  merchants  of  Montreal  tried  to  get  a  new  line  of 
boundary.  Various  changes  in  the  hoi:nwary  were  proposed, 
and  it  was  not  until  the  Treaty  of  Ghent  that  the  boundary 
through  the  lakes  and  the  destiny  of  the  Northwest  were 
assured. 

From  pre-historic  times  water  boundaries  have  been  fav- 
orite division  lines  between  tribes  and  nations.  While  high 
mountains  have  been  a  natural  boimdary,  mere  heights  of 
land  have  not,  as  a  rule,  been  considered  better  than  rivers. 
Even  such  an  unstable  boundar>-  as  the  Rio  Grande,  which 
is  constantly  annexing  Mexican  territory  to  Texas,  or  Texan 
territory  to  Mexico,  seems  preferable  to  one  of  a  purely 
imaginary  character. 

The  St.  Lawrence  and  the  lakes  formed  a  natural  boundary 
so  far  as  they  extended.  The  difference  in  sentiment  that 
prevailed  along  the  northeastern  frontier  south  of  the  St. 
Lawrence  prevented  the  fixing  of  that  river  as  the  bovuidary 
for  its  entire  length,  though  there  are  commercial  and  other 
reasons  which  might  have  favored  it. 

It  would  have  been  to  the  immediate  financial  advantage 
of  the  British  to  hold  the  posts  at  Michilimackinac,  Niagara 
and  Oswego;  a  neutral  zone  of  Indian  lands  south  of  the 
lakes  would  also  have  benefited  the  British  as  well  as  the 
Indians,  but  such  a  zone  could  not  have  been  held  forever 
from  the  advancing  hosts  of  civilization.  It  is  useless  to 
ignore  facts.  The  strong  hand  of  the  free  white  settler  would 
ultimately  have  obtained  the  Indian's  land  for  cultivation. 
And  as  the  Indian  was  pushed  westward,  the  original  pur- 
pose of  the  British  posts  would  have  ended,  and  the  increasing 
population  south  of  the  lakes  would  have  made  it  necessary 
for  the  British  to  withdraw  their  pretensions  to  control  the 
use  of  the  lakes. 


^ 


Northern  Boundary  of  a  Nciv  Nation. 


36 


)rever 

;ss  to 

kvould 

[ation. 

pur- 

fasing 

^ssary 

)1  the 


In  1783  Cinada  was  not  considered  to  be  very  desirable 
territory.  Settlements  in  Upper  Canada  were  very  sparse. 
It  is  perhaps  not  profitable  to  conjecture  to  what  extent  the 
subsequent  events  of  American  history  would  have  been 
changed  if  a  part  of  Canada  had  been  ceded  to  the  United 
States.  It  is  hard  to  prove  what  might  have  been  the  course  of 
historical  events. 

There  was  some  objection  to  the  boundary  through  the 
middle  of  the  lakes  on  the  ground  that  it  could  not  be  well 
defined,  but  conditions  which  have  since  arisen  have  tended 
to  confirm  the  belief  of  the  fathers  that  it  was  better  than  a 
line  through  a  semi-wilderness.  From  a  commercial  and 
international  standpoint  the  lakes  have  proven  more  and 
more  to  be  the  most  logical  solution  of  the  boundary  that 
could  have  been  made. 


t 


III. 


THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  THE  CONTROL  OF  THE 
LAKES— 1 783- 1 815. 

"The  Great  Lakes  which  stretch  along  your  borders  have  Ijeen 
the  scenes  of  desperate  conflicts  ;  and  even  now,  as  the  traveler 
procti'ds  II])  Lake  I'rie,  he  points  to  its  western  islands  as  the  Greek 
patriot  points  to  Salamis  ;  to  the  place  where  the  lamented  Perry 
gained  his  victory  with  Sjiartan  coiiraj;e,  and  made  his  report  with 
Spartan  brevity.  There  no  monument  can  be  erected.  .  .  .  The 
waves  roll,  and  will  roll  over  it ;  but  whoever  passes  by  with  no 
kindling  emotion  ...  let  him  distrust  his  own  heart,  and  let  his 
country  distrust  him." — General  Cass,  in  an  address  be/ore  the 
alumni  0/  IlainiHon  College,  /S30. 

Gouvcrnctir  AIorri.s,  in  1778,  when  he  said  that  England 
would  have  control  of  the  lakes,  did  not  read  the  ftitiire  as 
well  as  he  had  read  it  upon  the  question  of  internal  navi- 
gation. Rut  even  after  the  Treaty  of  1783  had  settled  their 
destiny  on  paper  the  course  of  events  made  it  appear  neces- 
sary that  these  lakes  become  the  scenes  of  desperate  conflicts 
before  England  would  loosen  her  grasp  upon  their  south- 
ern shores  and  become  content  to  rest  in  peace  on  the 
opposite  side.  No  American  flag  was  yet  floating  upon  this 
vast  expanse  of  waters  when  national  feeling  had  set  the  gov- 
ernment to  work  under  a  written  constitution.  But  in  1796, 
on  board  a  small  schooner  of  seventy  tons,  on  Lake  Erie,  it 
was  first  raised.  On  June  12,  1798,  Congress  passed  an  act 
"For  the  construction  and  repair  of  certain  vessels  on  the 
lakes,  in  the  service  of  the  government,'"  and  in  1802  the  first 
government  vessel  was  launched  there. 

The  importance  of  the  lakes  had  been  seen  from  the  first, 
and  there  was  no  intention  of  allowing  our  interest  in  them 

'  Statutes,  Vol.  i.  p.  564. 


-Jt: 


I 


-:* 


Struggle  for  Control  of  the  Lakes.  9t 

to  lapse.  As  early  as  1784  Washington  had  urged  that  Con- 
gress should  have  the  Western  waters  explored  and  their 
c^iacities  for  navij^ation  ascertained  as  far  as  the  communi- 
catsons  between  Lake  Erie  and  the  Wabash,  and  also  be- 
tween Lake  Michigan  and  the  Mississippi.  He  saw  that  the 
sjyirrt  of  emigration  was  abroad  in  the  land,  and  that  the  lakes 
wooM  bear  a  close  relation  to  the  development  of  the  North- 
vn-fit  The  excellence  of  the  interior  country  in  the  region  of 
t!he  Lakes  was  becoming  better  known,  and  people  were  be- 
gimining  to  write  of  the  possibilities  of  the  lakes  and  of  inland 
naii-i^ation.  Jefferson  urged  the  necessity  of  connecting  the 
Potoiinac  with  the  lakes. 

The  increasing  importance  of  the  Northwest  did  not  dim- 
inish the  tendency  to  friction  in  that  region.  The  British  did 
not  give  up  the  posts  south  of  the  lakes.  The  Treaty  of  Paris 
had  *<carcely  been  made  when  the  British  began  to  accuse  the 
Americans  of  breaking  it.  On  the  other  hand,  many  Ameri- 
cans believed  that  it  had  never  been  the  intention  of  Great 
Britain  to  surrender  the  posts  and  give  up  the  trade  of  the 
lakes.  It  was  desired  to  retain  this  commerce.  John  Tyler, 
of  Richmond,  wrote  to  Monroe  in  1784  that  "their  policy 
is  noiw  to  negotiate  for  this  object  by  ceding  the  point  of 
connpensation  and  sterling  debts.'" 

In  Jnly,  1783,  Haldiman  had  refused  to  surrender  the  posts 
to  Baron  Steuben,  and  for  thirteen  years  the  British  flag 
flootefi  on  American  soil.  The  retention  of  the  frontier  posts 
had  more  than  a  sentimental  effect.  It  was  important  from 
am  economic  standpoint.  British  officers  levied  duties  on 
American  vessels  passing  the  posts.  Traders  and  boatmen 
were  Icep-t  in  a  constant  state  of  irritation.  To  the  American 
fur-trader  it  meant  a  loss  of  much  trade.  To  the  Western 
Indians  it  gave  hope  that  they  would  be  allowed  to  hold  the 
land  north  of  the  Ohio  river. 

Traders  and  refugees  in  Canada  complained  that  there  was 
danger  of  the  Americans  getting  control  of  the  fur  trade.    At 


'  Monroe  Papers,  Vol.  7,  p.  463. 


88 


Neutrality  of  the  American  Lakes. 


this  time  it  seems  that  the  EngHsh  Government  did  not  allow 
private  vessels  to  navigate  the  lakes,  and  there  were  many 
complaints  that  there  were  not  enough  of  the  King's  vessels 
to  meet  the  needs  of  trade.  There  were  petitions  for  private 
vessels,  but  the  government  would  not  allow  them.'  An 
attempt  was  made  to  "persuade  the  King  and  ministry  to 
build  a  fleet  of  nrmed  ships  upon  the  lakes,  and  to  negotiate 
with  all  the  Indian  nations,  in  order  to  attach  them  to  their 
side."'^ 

Some  people  favored  an  alliance  with  England,  in  order  to 
get  better  trade  advantages.  Kentucky  had  separated  from 
Virginia  in  order  to  form  a  new  State,  and  its  citizens  even 
thought  of  separation  from  the  rest  of  the  nation  and  alli- 
ance with  England. 

Affairs  had  not  improved  in  1791,  when  Jefferson  Jrew 
the  attention  of  the  American  representative  at  London  to 
the  fact  that  the  British  still  held  many  posts  along  the  lakes, 
that  British  officers  had  tried  I "  exercise  jurisdiction  in  the 
vicinity  of  the  forts,  and  that  they  had  excluded  American 
citizens  from  the  navigation  of  the  American  side  of  the  lakes 
and  rivers  forming  the  boundary,  and  had  thus  seriously 
interrupted  their  fur  trade.  England  had  sent  no  minister  to 
the  United  States  till  1791.  Hammond,  who  was  sent  in  that 
year,  claimed  that  the  Americans  had  never  fulfilled  their 
part  of  the  treaty  in  regard  to  debts.  He  and  Jefferson  car- 
ried on  a  long  correspondence  in  regard  to  the  subjects  of 
misunderstanding,  but  no  settlement  of  difificulties  was 
reached. 

New  dangers  arose.  In  1793  there  was  talk  of  Western 
New  York  joining  Canada  if  the  people  there  could  not  get 
the  right  to  form  a  new  State.  War  between  France  and 
England  threatened  to  be  a  source  of  much  trouble  to  the 
American  nation.    The  treaty  of  1778  had  placed  the  United 


'Canadian   Archives,    Series   2,  Vol.   25,  pp.   iii,    118,    128,    298. 
Report  of  1891. 
^4  Sparks"  13ip.  Cor.,  p.  467.     (Adams  to  Jay,  Dec.  1785.) 


Struggle  for  Control  of  the  Lakes. 


89 


5tern 
get 
and 
the 

lited 

1298. 


'^ 


States  under  obligations  to  France.  The  subsequent  con- 
vention of  1788  gave  a  jurisdiction  to  French  consuls  which 
was  embarrassing  to  the  United  States  as  a  neutral.  The 
government  was  firm  in  declaring  a  neutral  policy,  but  public 
sympathy,  especially  in  the  South,  was  with  France.  Both 
England  and  France  issued  decrees  for  the  seizure  of  vessels 
carrying  provisions  to  an  enemy's  port  (1793). 

On  April  24,  1794,  the  Republicans  in  Congress  moved  to 
discontinue  conmiercial  relations  with  England  until  the  lake 
posts  were  given  up.  This  led  Washington  to  send  Jay  to 
London  to  negotiate  a  treaty,  with  instructions  not  to  sur- 
render upon  any  consideration  any  of  the  posts  on  any  part 
of  American  territory. 

A  few  days  after  Jay's  departure  for  England  considerable 
alarm  was  aroused  by  the  report  "that  Governor  Simcoe  had 
marched  to  the  rapids  of  the  Miami  lake  with  three  com- 
panies of  Colonel  England's  regiment  to  build  a  fort  there."* 
The  American  Government  was  in  doubt  as  to  whether  Sim- 
coe's  movement  was  a  part  of  a  systematic  attempt  to  regain 
territory,  but  it  was  certain  as  to  its  own  policy.  It  would 
not  surrender  its  territory  to  the  British,  although  the  danger 
of  war  was  clearly  seen."  Washington  was  convinced  that  as 
long  as  the  British  retained  Detroit  and  other  posts  within 
the  limits  of  the  United  States,  a  condition  of  perfect  tran- 
quillity with  the  Indians  could  not  be  secured. 

In  October,  1794,  Simcoe  told  the  Indians  at  Fort  M'ami 
that  he  was  going  to  Quebec  and  that  the  English  would  be 
prepared  to  attack  the  Americans  and  drive  them  back  across 
the  Ohio  the  following  spring.  But  in  the  absence  of  the 
British,  the  Indians  met  Wayne  at  Greenville,  Ohio",  on  Aug- 
ust 3,  1795,  and  made  large  grants  of  territory  to  the  United 
States. 

The  authorities  in  Canada  at  this  time  were  considering 
the  importance  of  the  naval  force  for  the  defense  of  Canada. 


'  2  Instructions,  May  27,  1794. 
'^2  histructions,  May  27,  1794. 


(Randolph  to  Jay.) 


40 


Neutrality  of  the  American  Lakes. 


It  was  recommended  that  in  case  of  hostilities  the  militia 
should  be  liable  to  serve  on  the  lakes  as  well  as  on  the  shore/ 

By  Jay's  treaty,  signed  November  19,  1794,  it  was  agreed 
that  the  English  troops  were  to  withdraw  from  all  the  terri- 
tories in  the  United  States  on  June  i,  1796.  There  were 
other  advantageous  provisions,  but  the  treaty  met  with 
much  opposition  in  the  United  States.  Some  of  the  people 
were  so  impracticable  as  to  advocate  a  prevention  of  trade 
with  the  Northern  neighbors.'  They  would  have  nourished 
violent  enmity  rather  than  have  friendly  intercourse,  and 
would  have  kept  the  vessels  of  each  party  from  crossing  the 
middle  line  of  the  lakes.' 

There  was  a  strong  feeling  that  there  was  a  want  of  reci- 
procity in  the  provisions  regarding  the  navigation  of  the 
lakes.  "Columbus,"  of  Virginia,  said  the  United  State? 
should  have  had  egress  and  ingress  from  the  lakes  to  the  At- 
lantic, else  her  goods  must  go  in  British  ships  and  give  Great 
Britain  a  monopoly  on  the  lakes.  He  also  said  that  the  im- 
portation of  arms  and  warlike  stores  should  have  been  pro- 
hibited by  way  of  the  lakes.  The  people  of  Richmond 
county,  Virginia,  objected  to  the  clause  which  allowed  Brit- 
ish subjects  to  remain  at  the  Western  trading  posts,  and  said 
it  was  an  "actual  cession  of  the  key  of  the  lakes  to  the  Crown 
of  England,"  and  the  "establishment  of  the  British  Empire 
in  the  bosom  of  the  Union." 

In  1795  an  effort  was  made  to  prevent  appropriations  for 
the  carrying  out  of  the  treaty.  Only  the  popularity  of  Wash- 
ington saved  the  country  from  repudiation  and  war  with 
England. 

War  was  averted,  and  our  commerce  grew.  Relations 
grew  better  with  England  as  they  grew  worse  with  France. 


'  Report  of  Canadian  Archives,  1S91.  State  Papers,  Upper  Can- 
ada, p.  30. 

^American  R^imembrancer,  Vols,  i,  2  and  3.  Also,  Madison 
Papers,  \  ol.  5. 

='  rTreedom  of  commerce  and  navi,i;ation  in  tlie  waters  of  both 
countries  was  granted  to  the  inhabitants  of  each,  subject  to  local 
laws  and  regulations. 


Struggle  for  Control  of  the  Lakes. 


41 


Can- 


For  awhile  Pitt  hoped  to  get  the  United  States  as  an  ally 
against  France.  This,  of  course,  was  not  the  American 
policy.  Washington  desired  to  avoid  "entangling  alliances" 
as  well  as  antipathies.  But  even  Jefferson,  the  leader  of  the 
Republicans,  spoke  in  favor  of  alliance  against  France  in 
April,  1802,  when  he  was  considering  the  recent  cession  of 
Louisiana  by  Spain  to  France.  lie  wrote:  "The  day  France 
takes  possession  of  New  Orleans  fixes  the  sentence  which  is 
to  restrain  her  forever  within  her  low-water  mark.  It  seals 
the  union  of  two  nations,  who,  in  conjunction,  can  maintain 
exclusive  possession  of  the  ocean.  From  that  moment  we 
must  marry  the  British  fleet  and  nation."  There  was  no 
desire  to  see  Xapolcon  set  a  foothold  in  America. 

But  with  the  news  of  fresh  convulsions  in  Europe,  and  with 
the  purchase  of  Louisiana  by  the  United  States,  the  attitude 
toward  England  became  less  cordial.  The  new  British  min- 
ister, Anthony  Merry,  and  his  wife,  who  came  to  Washing- 
ton the  latter  part  of  1803,  adopted  a  grumbling  tone,  which 
increased  the  coolness.  They  were  dissatisfied  with  the 
inconveniences  of  travel  and  life  in  the  new  country,  and 
found  fault  with  Jefferson's  table  etiquette  and  ideas  of 
equality.  Airs.  Merry  felt  that  Jefferson  did  not  pay  her 
enough  attention.  She  thought  that  Jerome  Bonaparte  and 
wife  were  treated  better  than  herself.  Social  complaints  were 
complicated  by  other  matters.  Madison  insisted  upon  neu- 
tral rights.  Rufus  King's  boundary  convention  between  the 
Lake  of  the  Woods  and  the  Alississippi  was  not  ratified.  The 
Federalists  encouraged  the  trouble  with  Merry.  In  Febru- 
ary, 1804,  he  was  taken  into  a  plot  for  a  New  England  con- 
federacy. He  was  also  drawn  into  Burr's  schemes  for  the 
separation  of  the  Western  territory.  Merry's  letter  sent  to 
the  Foreign  Office  caused  his  recall  after  Pitt's  death,  and 
England  was  not  drawri  into  the  Burr  conspiracy,  but  mat- 
ters had  been  drifting  to  a  position  which  looked  like  war 
with  England. 

England  and  France,  in  adopting  a  campaign  of  starva- 
tion in  their  war  against  each  other,  greatly  embarrassed 


42 


Neutrality  of  the  Ameriean  Lakes. 


American  commerce.  The  Order  in  Council  of  May,  1806, 
declared  a  blockade  of  the  coast  of  Europe  from  Brest  to  the 
Elbe.  Napoleon's  Berlin  Decree  of  November,  1806,  de- 
clared a  blockade  of  the  British  Isles,  and  prohibited  com- 
mercial relations  with  them.  Great  Britain  wanted  the 
United  States  to  resist  the  Berlin  Decree,  but  the  United 
States  Government  complained  that  the  new  treaty  which 
was  proposed  to  take  the  place  of  Jay's  treaty  was  unfavor- 
able to  the  United  States.  In  January  and  November,  1807, 
Great  Britain  issued  new  Orders  in  Council  to  prevent  neu- 
trals from  tradinf^  with  France.  ^  apoleon,  in  December, 
issued  his  Milan  Decree,  making  it  legal  to  seize  any  ship  in 
ports  under  his  control  if  it  had  attempted  to  obey  the 
English  orders.  These  acts  were  a  severe  blow  to  American 
commerce.  In  addition  to  the  above  orders,  the  British  had 
claimed  the  right  to  search  American  ships  for  deserters  and 
to  impress  all  whom  they  should  decide  to  owe  allegiance  to 
Great  Britain.  Jefferson  was  finally  led  to  a  policy  of  com- 
mercial restriction  in  order  to  prevent  war. 

In  1808  relations  were  much  strained.  General  Hull  sug- 
gested to  the  administration  the  expediency  of  placing 
armed  vessels  on  Lake  Erie  in  order  to  protect  the  communi- 
cation with  the  Northwest  Territory.  The  Jay  treaty  had 
not  prevented  subsequent  sources  of  irritation  upon  the  lake 
frontier.  It  seems  that  the  revenue  officers  of  the  United 
States  had  from  time  to  time  "attempted  to  exact  duties 
upon  goods  crossing  the  portages."  The  Canadian  traders 
resisted  such  duties  on  the  ground  that  the  Jay  treaty  gave 
them  freedom  of  commerce  and  intercourse.  It  was  also 
claimed  that  the  situation  of  American  ports  of  entry  on  the 
boundary  lakes  and  rivers,  and  the  nature  of  the  navigation^ 
made  it  difficult  to  observe  rigidly  the  regulations  which 
were  applicable  to  Atlantic  ports,  and  that  all  impediments  to 
trade  should  be  avoided.  It  seems  that  in  some  cases  Cana- 
dian vessels  had  been  seized  because  of  their  too  great  prox- 
imity to  particular  ports  or  shores,  though  the  claim  was  set 
up  that  there  had  been  no  intention  of  infringing  the  revenue 


W 


Struggle  for  Control  of  the  Lakes. 


48 


laws  of  the  United  States.  The  necessity  of  securinj:^  the 
"netitraHty  of  the  lakes  and  waters"  in  order  to  prevent  this 
restriction  on  trade  was  urged  several  years  later/  The 
British  traders  \vere  using  every  efifort  to  retain  the  control 
of  the  lake  trade,  but  the  events  of  the  next  four  years  were 
to  lessen  their  influence  and  give  Americans  an  opportunity 
to  obtain  supremacy  upon  the  inland  waters.  In  1808,  Mr. 
Canning  complained  to  the  United  States  minister  that  an 
attack  had  been  made  upon  some  British  boats  on  the  lakes, 
in  violation  of  tiie  treaty  of  1794,  and  was  causing  great 
alarm  and  anxiety  among  the  British  traders.'  The  vex- 
atious English  Orders  in  Council  were  not  repealed,  and  the 
seizure  of  American  vessels  upon  the  seas  was  not  discon- 
tinued. England's  policy  in  her  war  with  France  was  lead- 
ing her  into  a  second  war  with  the  United  States.  Affairs 
were  complicated  by  the  attitude  taken  by  Mr.  Jackson,  the 
British  Minister  at  Washington,  in  regard  to  social  and 
diplomatic  relations.  Unhappily,  also,  the  elections  for  Con- 
gress took  place  during  a  whirlwind  of  passion.  Finally,  the 
Indian  troubles  in  181 1  aroused  the  hardy  men  of  the  fron- 
tier, who  believed  that  the  attitude  of  the  savage  was  due  to 
the  influence  of  the  British. 

The  fiery  speeches  of  fascinating  leaders,  and  the  slowness 
of  the  British  Government  in  repealing  the  Orders  in  Coun- 
cil, forced  the  administration  at  Washington  into  what  has 
since  been  called  an  "unnecessary  and  unwise  war."  Though 
this  war  was  begun  in  order  to  secure  American  rights  upon 
the  ocean,  the  lake  frontier  was  the  principal  theatre  of  mili- 
tary operations,  and  one  of  the  most  important  struggles  in 
the  negotiations  for  peace  was  to  secure  American  rights 
upon  the  lakes  and  the  adjacent  southern  shores. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  war  the  importance  of  securing 
conmiand  of  the  lakes  became  at  once  evident.     The  first 


'  Pamphleteer,  Vol.  6,   pp.  35,  43,  etc.     (Nalliatiiel  Atchesoii  on 
"American  Encroachments.") 
'^  Am.  State  Papers,  Vol.  3,  p.  226.     (Pinckney  to  Madison.) 


■•f* 


44 


Neutrality  of  the  American  Lakes. 


plan  of  the  Americans  was  to  cut  the  British  off  from  the 
West  by  an  invasion  of  Canada  from  Detroit.  The  idea  was 
to  get  rontiol  of  the  lakes.  Hull  had  opposed  the  invasion 
of  C;,  '  iust  then,  as  it  was  too  strong  to  be  overcome  by 
A:"n  '.i  ^^'-ces  and  was  likely  to  be  aggressive  in  return. 
Dui',1^  .h  •  winter  of  1811-12  Hull  had  been  at  Washington, 
and  believed  that  the  war  could  be  avoided.  When  the  in- 
vasi  )n  01  ""ana'''  ts  being  discussed  he  had  favored  placing 
a  force  at  Detroit  icr  iT-Dtection,  but  he  did  not  favor  making 
this  a  part  of  the  plan  for  getting  control  of  the  lakes.  He 
believed  that  with  Detroit  protected  the  Indians  could  be 
kept  from  Alalden,  and  that  the  British,  unable  to  hold  Can- 
ada without  them,  would  leave  it.  and  that  the  command  of 
the  lakes  would  be  obtained  without  a  fleet.  But  the  sur- 
render of  Mackinaw  in  July,  and  of  Hull  at  Detroit  in  Aug- 
ust, left  the  British  in  conunand  of  the  lakes  and  the  North- 
west, together  with  a  greater  influence  among  the  Indians. 

When  the  war  began  the  United  States  had  no  naval  force 
on  the  lakes.  The  British  had  the  advantage  in  this  resi)ect. 
As  early  as  October  8,  18 12,  however,  the  British  armed  ves- 
sels, the  Detroit^  and  tlie  Caledonia,  \vere  captured  by  Lieut. 
Jesse  D.  Elliot."  Even  as  early  as  July  ist  Captain  Woolsey 
had  requested  twenty  six-pounders  with  which  to  arm  such 
vessels  of  commerce  as  could  be  found  upon  Lake  Ontario. 
This  request  had  been  referred  to  the  navy  by  Captain 
Chauncey.  On  (October  12th  General  Armstrong  wrote  to 
Secretary  Gallatin  that  it  was  not  yet  too  late  to  accomplish 
Woolsey's  object,  which  would  not  only  be  important  in  giv- 
ing "exclusive  and  uninterrupted  use  of  the  lakes  for  public 
purposes,"  but  would  also  "effectually  separate  Upper  Can- 
ada from  Lower  Canada.'" 

'  The  bagi^ajje  of  Gen.  Hull  and  family  was  on  the  Detroit.  It  had 
taken  Hull's  family  part  of  the  way.  Hull  himself  had  been  furnished 
with  passage  across  the  lake  by  a  Uritish  armed  vessel  detailed  on 
purpose — a  courtesy  creditable  to  both  parties. 

'  It  appears  that  Britisli  commercial  vessels  were  captured  on  Lake 
Ontario  even  before  the  war  commenced.  (16  Domestic  Letters, 
p.  27.S.) 

■''Armstrong  :  Notices  i>f  the  War  of  1.S12,  \'ol.  i,  p.  177. 


■'rmm 


Struggle  for  Control  of  the  Lakes. 


45 


The  expectation  of  getting  conimand  of  the  lakes  by  the 
invasion  of  Canada  having  been  disappointed  by  the  surren- 
"der  of  General  Hull  at  Detroit,  measures  were  now  taken  by 
the  United  Elates  Government  to  get  control  of  these  inland 
seas  by  providing  upon  thcni  a  naval  force  superior  to  that 
of  the  enemy.'  There  was  no  doubt  about  the  quantity  of 
water  being  sufificient  to  float  the  largest  ships.  The  storm 
waves  upon  these  watery  depths  might  challenge  those  of 
the  great  ocean.  The  difficulty  came  in  getting  vessels  ready 
to  float.  It  was  no  easy  matter  to  create  a  navy  upon  these 
inland  waters.  They  were  inaccessible  <  >  vessels  from  the 
sea,  and  there  were  no  large  shipbuilding  plants  upon  their 
borders  as  there  are  now.  Settlements  were  sparse  upon  the 
south  shores  of  the  lakes,  and  most  supplies  had  to  be 
brought  from  the  seaboard  at  great  expense. 

The  difficulties  were  probably  greater  for  the  British  than 
for  the  Americans.^  I'resident  Madison  was  confident  of 
ultimate  success  in  driving  the  British  traders  out  and  get- 
ting control  of  the  lakes.  In  his  message  to  Congress  on 
November  4th  he  said:  "Should  the  present  season  not  ad- 
mit of  complete  success,  the  progress  made  will  ensure  for 
the  next  a  naval  ascendency,  where  it  is  essential  to  our  ncr- 
manent  peace  with,  and  control  over,  the  savages." 

It  is  hard  to  say  who  first  proposed  a  naval  armament 
upon  the  lakes.  It  has  been  attributed  to  General  Harrison 
by  Mr.  I'rofit,  of  Indiana.  The  posts  which  General  Harri- 
son had  to  recover  in  181 2- 13  were  separated  from  the  fron- 
tier settlements  by  a  swampy  forest  for  200  miles.  The  Brit- 
isli,  just  after  the  fall  of  Detroit,  commanded  Lake  Erie  with 
their  fleet.  It  occurred  to  Harrison  that  the  best  plan  was  to 
build  a  fleet  on  the  lake  to  co-operate  with  the  forces  on  the 
land.'    The  same  idea  mav  have  occurred  to  others  also. 


'.Am.  State  Papers,  Foreij^n  Relations,  Vol.  i,  p.  80.  Madison's 
Mc'ssaj^e  of  November  4,  iSi  2. 

-James:  Naval  Occurrences,  p.  2S5. 

■'  Hildretli  :  Life  of  Harrison,  p.  130.  Also,  Har.  ison's  Corres- 
pondence witli  tiie  War  Department. 


\   i. 


46 


Neutrality  of  the  American  Lakes. 


General  Armstrong  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  whole 
extent  of  Canada's  defense  rested  upon  navigable  lakes  and 
rivers,  and  wrote  that  no  time  should  be  lost  in  getting  naval 
ascendency  on  both,  "for  the  belligerent  who  is  first  to  obtain 
this  advantage  will,  (miracles  excepted),  win  the  game."  But 
Armstrong  at  first,  probably,  did  not  have  in  view  the  crea- 
tion of  a  navy  outside  of  the  "commercial  craft."  General 
Harrison's  plan  was  quite  in  harmony  with  the  view  of  Arm- 
strong.' On  April  4,  1813,  the  latter  wrote  Harrison:  "Our 
first  object  is  to  get  command  of  the  lakes.  It  can  be  done 
by  June  ist.  This  is  your  easy,  safe  and  economical  route  to 
Maiden."  These  were  also  the  views  of  the  Government  at 
Washington.  In  addition  to  the  vessels  that  had  already 
been  equipped,  Congress,  by  Act  of  March  3,  1813,'  author- 
ized the  President  "to  have  built  or  procured  such  a  number 
of  sloops  of  war,  or  other  armed  vessels,  to  be  manned, 
equipped  and  commissioned,  as  the  public  service  may  re- 
quire, on  the  lakes." 

In  his  message  of  May  25,  1813,  Wx.  Madison  was  able  to 
say,  "On  the  lakes  our  superiority  is  near  at  hand  where  it 
has  not  already  been  established."' 

By  August,  1813,  when  Perry's  fleet  won  the  brilliant  vic- 
tory on  Lake  Erie,  the  Americans  had  gained  such  a  start  of 
England  upon  the  lakes  as  England  was  never  aljle  to  over- 
come. Mr.  James,  in  his  "Naval  Occurrences,"  attributes 
this  American  success  to  the  greater  difficulties  of  equipping 
British  vessels  "3500  miles  from  home,  penned  up  in  a  lake 
on  the  enemies'  border,  inaccessible  to  water." 

The  continued  success  of  the  Americans  upon  these  boun- 
dary waters  enabled  them  to  ask  conditions  which  would  be 
more  favorable  to  peace  in  that  region  at  the  close  of  the  war. 

Jay's  Treaty  of  1794  allowed  British  subjects  "to  navigate 
all  the  lakes,  rivers  and  waters  of  the  United  States  up  to  the 

'Armstrong  :  War  of  1812,  Vol.  i,  p.  245. 
'■'U.  S.  Slats,  at  Large,  Vol.  2,  p.  S21. 
•'Am.  Stale  Papers,  For.  Rol.,  Vol.  1,  p.  S;,. 


•i» 


Struggle  for  Control  of  the  Lakes. 


47 


lake 


highest  ports  of  entry,"  and  permitted  the  British  traders 
from  Canada  and  the  Northwest  Company  to  carry  on  trade 
with  the  Indian  tribes  within  the  limits  of  the  United  States. 
It  had  become  evident  that  the  inOnence  of  these  traders 
upon  the  Indians  was  against  the  interests  of  the  inhabitants 
of  the  Northwest.  From  the  beginning  of  the  war  it  was  the 
object  to  stop  this  trade.  This  was  the  purpose  of  the  inva- 
sion of  Canada  to  the  east  of  Detroit.'  The  idea  of  conquest 
was  not  planned  except  to  the  extent  necessary  for  protec- 
tion.'' It  was  considered  that  the  possession  of  West  Canada 
was  necessary  to  our  peace. ^  Another  idea  of  the  United 
States  Ciovcrnment  in  conquest  was  to  get  territory  which 
could  be  returned  to  England  in  return  for  the  privilege  of 
excluding  British  traders  from  American  territory,  and  of 
keeping  superior  naval  forces  on  the  lakes  by  which  they 
could  prevent  British  traders  from  navigating  the  lakes  and 
rivers  exclusively  within  American  jurisdiction. 

It  was  not  conquest  simply  for  the  sake  of  conquest.  It 
looked  forward  to  security.  Jefferson  wrote  to  IMonroe, 
June  19,  1813:  "What  we  do  in  Canada  must  be  done 
quickly,  because  our  enemy,  with  a  little  time,  can  empty 
pickpockets  upon  us  faster  than  we  can  enlist  honest  men  to 
oppose  them  if  we  fail  in  this  acquisition.  .  .  .  Could  we 
acquire  that  country  [Canada]  we  might,  perhaps,  insis'  suc- 
cessfully at  St.  Petersburg  on  retaining  all  westward  of  the 
meridian  of  Lake  Huron,  or  Lake  Ontario,  or  of  Montreal, 
according  to  the  ...  of  the  place,  as  an  indemnification  of 
the  past  and  security  for  the  future.  To  cut  them  ofT  from 
the  Indians,  even  west  of  the  Huron,  would  be  a  great  se- 
curity."*   On  June  23,  1813,  when  the  land  and  naval  forces 


'  Monroe  Papers.  Vol.  13.  (No.  1696,  Jefferson  to  Monroe,  June 
19,  1813.) 

'-'Clay's  idea  of  coneinest  in  1S12,  however,  was  not  tlius  limited. 
He  was  not  for  stopping  at  (Juebec  or  anywhere  else,  and  did  not 
want  to  see  peace  till  tiie  whole  continent  was  taken. 

'7  Instrnctions,  April  15  and  June  23,  1813. 

*  Monroe  Papers,  Vol.  13. 


48 


Neutralilv  of  the  American  Lakes. 


of  the  United  States  had  taken  York  and  Forts  George  and 
Erie,  and  there  was  a  good  pnjspeet  of  getting  all  Upper 
Canada.  Monroe  wrote  Gallatin,  Adams  and  Bayard  that 
while  sueh  success  would  have  a  salutary  influence  on  nego- 
tiations for  peace,  it  was  not  intended  to  continue  the  war 
rather  than  restore  Canada,  even  though  England  should 
have  no  equivalent  restitution  to  make  to  the  United  States.' 
It  was  expected,  however,  that  England  would  be  more  just 
upon  other  points  to  be  adjusted. 

We  may  say  that  there  was  a  strong  feeling  that  peace 
could  not  be  preserved  while  the  British  retained  their  influ- 
ence in  the  Northwest.'  Monroo.on  January  1. 1814,  wrote  the 
ambassadors  that  the  capture  of  the  documents  with  Proc- 
ter's baggage  showed  the  Indian  trouble  to  be  due  to  British 
influence,  and  that  this  fact  would  give  great  support,  in  case 
of  negotiation,  to  the  considerations  in  favor  of  the  cession 
of  Canada  to  the  United  States,  or,  at  least,  that  portion  lying 
between  the  western  end  of  Lake  Ontario  and  the  eastern 
end  of  Lake  Ilunjn.  By  January  28,  1814,  ?^Ionroe  had 
given  the  question  further  study,  and  wrote  that  "experience 
has  shown  that  Great  Britain  cannot  participate  in  the  do- 
minion and  navigation  of  the  lakes  without  incurring  the 
danger  of  an  early  renewal  of  the  war.'"  He  saw  that  it  was 
by  means  of  the  lakes  that  the  British  had  gained  an  ascend- 
ency over  the  Indians,  even  within  the  limits  of  the  United 
States.  Monroe  not  only  feared  the  continuation  of  mas- 
sacres along  the  frontier,  as  likely  to  be  a  fruitful  source  of 
controversy,  but  he  saw  that  the  rapid  settling  of  the  country 
would  increase  the  tendency  to  collision  between  the  two 
sides.  He  did  not  doubt  that  western  emigrants  would 
soon  push  the  western  limit  of  settlement  from  the  south- 
western limit  of  Lake  Erie  until  they  reached  "the  banks  of 
the  ]\Iichigan  and  even  of  the  other  lakes,"  and  he  feared  the 
"cupidity  of  the  British  traders"  could  not  be  controlled.    He 


'  7  Instructions,  p.  299.  '7  Instructions,  p.  308. 

'7  Instructions,  p.  315. 


Struggle  for  Control  of  the  Lakes. 


49 


urged  in  favor  of  cession  that  the  inevitable  consequence  of 
anotiicr  war,  and  even  of  the  present  if  persevered  in  by  the 
British  (Government,  would  be  to  sever  the  western  prov- ' 
inces  by  force  from  Great  Britain,  and  that  the  inhabitants 
of  the  provinces  would  soon  feel  their  strength  and  assert 
their  independence  anyhow.  In  case  no  cession  could  be 
obtained,  the  exclusion  of  British  traders  from  our  side  of 
the  lakes,  and  the  increase  of  our  naval  force  on  the  lakes, 
was  the  remaining  remedy. 

Writers  in  England,  on  the  contrary,  were  proposing  a 
boundary  farther  south  than  the  lakes.  Nathaniel  Atcheson, 
in  an  article  of  March  2,  1814,  on  "Points  to  be  discussed  in 
treating  with  the  United  States,'"  said  that  the  great  feature 
of  the  new  line  should  be  "exclusion  of  the  Americans  from 
navigation  of  the  St.  Lawrence,  and  all  the  congregation  of 
tributary  seas  and  waters.  They  are  the  natural  patrimony 
of  the  Canadas.  Water  communications  do  not  ofTer  either 
a  natural  or  secure  boundary.  Mountains  separate,  but  rivers 
approximate  mankind."  "Hence,"  said  he,  "the  prominent 
boundary  should  be  the  heights  of  land  separating  the  re- 
spective territories.""  This  would  have  given  to  England 
Lake  Champlain,  all  of  the  Great  Lakes  and  a  considerable 
amount  of  territory  south  of  the  lakes.  In  case  this  line  could 
not  be  obtained,  but  a  line  through  Lake  Ontario  and  Lake 
Huron  should  be  agreed  upon  instead,  Mr.  Atcheson  held 
that  "at  all  events  the  line  should  pass  from  Lake  Erie  up  the 
Sandusky  river  to  the  nearest  waters  of  the  Ohio,  and  then 
down  the  Mississippi."  In  the  latter  case  he  would  have  had 
it  stipulated  that  "no  vessel  belonging  to  the  Americans  ex- 
ceeding a  certain  burden,  twenty  or  thirty  tons,  which  is  a 
size  adequate  to  the  trade  of  those  regions,  should  be  suffered 
to  navigate  any  of  the  lakes,"  and  that  no  fortifications  should 


'  Pamplileteer.  Vol.  5,  No.  9,  Feb.,  1815. 

■-'  Maniiiis  Welksley,  in  a  speech  before  the  House  of  Lords,  on 
April  13,  1.S15,  saitl  the  war  with  A^  jrii:a  was  a  calainilous  one,  and 
shcjiild  have  been  stopped  as  soon  as  possible,  without  any  demands 
for  territory  south  of  the  lakes.     {American  Register,  Vol.  i.) 


60 


Neutrality  of  tlw  American  Lakes. 


A 


be  tTfoU'd  upon  any  of  the  waters  connected  with  the  hikes, 
"vvliilst  the  right  of  the  British  in  these  respects  should  be 
reserved  to  be  exercised  withont  restriction." 

Tn  the  meantinu',  the  Knj^Hsh  were  losing'  nif)ro  and  more 
their  control  of  the  lakes.  Since  Lake  ICric  had  been  won, 
the  shores  (jf  tiic  more  western  lakes  were  bein}^  scoured  to 
prevent  the  P.ritish  from  openinj^f  intercourse  with  the  In- 
dians. Vessels  were  being  built'  upon  Lakes  Ontario  and 
Champlain  in  the  spring  of  1814,  and  it  appeared  evident  that 
the  liritish  would  s()(jn  be  shut  out  from  tlie  W'cstcrn  lakes 
and  posts,  thus  putting  an  end  to  further  naval  expenditure 
on  Lake  Ontario,  and  practically  giving  the  United  States 
possession  of  a  great  j)art  of  L.'pper  Canada.  Cleneral  Arm- 
strong felt  that  it  would  be  easy  then  to  gain  Montreal  and 
bring  the  war  to  a  speedy  and  favorable  termination. 

On  June  23,  1814,  Monroe  was  still  urging  the  advantages 
to  both  countries  of  a  transfer  of  the  upper  parts  of  Canada 
to  the  United  Slates.' 

Castlereagh  having  (tffered  to  oi)en  negotiations  direct 
with  the  representatives  of  the  United  States  Government, 
commissioners  had  been  appointed  by  President  .Madison  at 
once,  'riu-se  connnissioners  were  ready  to  negotiate  in 
June,  but  Castlereagh,  it  was  said,  wished  delay  so  that  P.rit- 
ish troops  could  occupy  territory  along  the  lakes  which  they 
intended  to  hold. 

When  the  1  British  commissioners  met  the  United  States 
conmiissioners  at  Ghent,  in  August,  they  soon  dispelled  any 
hopes  which  may  have  been  held  regarding  cessi(jn  of  Cana- 
dian territory  to  the  United  States.'  They  made  the  "mod- 
erate" proposal  that  Great  Britain,  being  the  weaker  power 
on  the  North  American  continent,  should  have  military  occu- 
pation of  the  lakes,  in  order  to  prevent  the  conquest  of  her 
dominions  by  the  Americans.* 

'  Slats.  3,  p.  !.V9.     Art  of  April  iS,  181.}. 

'^7  Instructions,  \>\).  297  and  361. 

■'Am.  State  Papi-TS,  l<'or.  Kel.,  Vol.  3,  p.  709. 

^  "America,"  Vol.  129.  Also,  see  Letters  and  Despatclies  of  Castle- 
reagh,Vol.  2,  3rd  Series.  Marcjuis  Wellesley  said  that  the  groimd  of 
weakness  should  not  nave  been  urged. 


StrufrgU  for  Control  of  the  Lakes. 


61 


At  lifSt.  they  were  also  dctcrmiiud  to  secure  for  the  In- 
dians a  itrip  of  territory  south  of  the  lakes.  This  was  not  so 
much   in   recognition  of   the  riphts  of  their  copper-ctjlorod 

brelhrt-n,  a.'*  human  bcitifj^s,  to  he  included  in  the  ])rovisions 
of  puUk  Eavv :  it  was  ratlier  an  attempt  to  secure  a  "barrier 
afjainfl  Anretrican  aggression"  upon  Canada.  This  barrier 
would  have  fjcen  formed  by  cutting  olT  from  Ohio  and  the 
terrii'irie*  <r.t  the  Xorthwest  a  country  more  extensive  than 
Great  Jiriitain  and  containing  thousands  of  freemen. 

liut  the  American  conmiissioners  could  not  accede  to 
either  of  the«e  propositions.  They  denied  the  right  of  Eng- 
land to  jnterfere  in  the  concerns  of  the  Indians  residing  in 
the  Uniu-ifl  States,  and  did  not  propose  to  give  up  their  ecpial 
right  \fj  \h*z  lakes.  They  wished  for  peace  upon  those  terms 
of  recjpr'xity  honorable  tcj  both  countries.  They  sent  this 
reply  on  Augiiist  24,  1814.  At  that  time  it  seemed  that  nego- 
tiations wonild  come  to  an  end.  Clay  wrote  that  "reliance 
will  Ix-  miich  better  on  the  firmness  and  energy  of  the  Ameri- 
can pt^4ile  to  conquer  again  their  independence.'"  Adams 
wrote  in  \m  diarv'  that  they  had  decided  it  would  not  be  nec- 
essary lo  rent  their  house  for  another  month.  The  British 
commisfjifjuicrs,  after  writing  a  reply,  sent  it  to  Lord  Castle- 
reagh  at  Paris,  and  he  promptly  took  the  pains  to  submit  it 
to  the  goivcnniment  at  London.'' 

Adams,  on  September  i,  called  to  see  Mrs.  Goulburn.  the 
wife  of  one  of  the  British  commissioners,  but  saw  only  her 
husband,  whose  conversation  was  not  such  as  could  have 


:!astle- 
biiul  of 


'  Monroe  Papers,  Vol.  14,  August  19. 

^  Caslltitajf&t  was  mox^.  favor.ihly  disposed  toward  tlie  United 
Slates  liiaaj  flr«re  any  of  the  <jtlier  members  of  the  ministry.  C(iming 
from  Franc*,,  aruE  having  had  intercourse  with  Emperor  Ale.xander, 
it  is  nr>t  unpTffjfc'ible  th.it  these  dispositions  may  have  l)een  increased 
by  the  persomial  e.xpression  o(  the  Emperor's  wisliei  in  favor  of 
peace  wilJi  Amaeirka.  On  his  route  to  Paris,  the  latter  part  of  August, 
he  had  si:  '■•  '  •'ihent.  He  tlid  not  see  the  American  ministers, 
but  on  A  .  -•;  he  wrote  from  I'aris  to  Lord  Liverpool  that  it 
would  bfc  V.  -;  '  state  the  preposition  as  to  Indian  limits  less  per- 
emptorily, " 


i 

■ 

i 
1 

'1 
1 

f 

'f  ■ 

■  t 

.    t 

lis 


52 


Nentralily  of  the  American  Lakes. 


made  Adams  hope  for  further  negotiations.'  He  stated  that 
both  the  proposed  Indian  territory  and  tlie  English  control 
of  the  lakes  had  for  tiieir  main  purpose  the  security  of  Can- 
ada. Concerning  the  proposed  Indian  barrier,  upon  which 
neither  party  should  encroach,  Adams  said  that  the  United 
States  could  not  be  kept  from  settling  and  cultivating"  lands 
which  the  Indians  did  not  improve.  It  was  clear  that  the 
United  States  was  standing  upon  good  grounds,  and  she  did 
not  propose  to  retire  into  the  background.  She  could  not 
with  honor  have  given  the  Indians  the  frontier,  any  more 
than  she  could  have  given  England  control  of  the  lakes.  The 
onward  march  of  settlement  coidd  not  have  been  stayed  by  a 
bond  of  paper.  Though  the  stroke  of  a  pen  hail  once  given 
England  half  a  continent,  it  could  not  insure  the  wilderness 
of  the  Northwest  to  the  Indian  and  to  the  British  trader. 

During  these  negotiations  the  American  forces  were  not 
idle  on  the  northern  frontier.  On  September  20,  President 
Madison  was  able  to  say:  "On  the  lakes,  so  much  contested 
throughout  the  war,  the  great  exertions  made  for  the  com- 
mand, on  our  part,  have  been  well  repaid." '  A  part  of  the 
Lake  Erie  squadron  had  been  extended  into  Lake  Huron, 
though  Mackinaw  was  still  in  the  hands  of  the  ICnglish.  On 
Lake  C  )nlario  the  American  scjuadron  was  able  to  keep  that 
of  the  British  in  their  own  port,  and  to  favor  the  operation  of 
land  forces.  The  American  superiority  was  fully  established 
on  Lake  Champlain  by  the  victory  of  McDonough  and  the 
destruction  of  the  iKJstile  lleet.  On  September  -'4,  Jeffer.son 
wrote  to  Madison:  "Their  navy  is  no  kjnger  invincible  as  the 
world  thought.  We  have  dissipated  that  error.  They  must 
now  feel  a  conviction  that  we  can  beat  them  gun  to  gun,  shij) 
to  ship,  and  fleet  to  fleet."*  

'  Adams'  Memoirs,  Vol.  3,  pp.  24-29. 

-Sir  James  Macintosh,  ow  April  11,  1S15,  said  tliat  the  British  had 
tried  to  guard  by  deserts  { Indian  lands)  what  they  could  not  guard 
by  streiigtii.  Maniuis  Wellesley,  in  the  British  House  of  Lords,  on 
April  13,  1.S15,  spoke  ol  the  unreasonable  demands  of  the  British  in 
regard  to  tiie  boundary  which  they  proposed. 

^Am.  Stale  Papers,  l-oreign  Relations,  Vol.  i,  p.  87. 

♦Jellerson  Papers,  Series  i,  Vol.  13. 


Struggle  for  Control  of  the  Lakes. 


u 


kli  had 
Lnard 
lis,  on 
lish  in 


'I 


In  the  face  of  these  circumstances,  the  news  of  the  British 
proposals  which  reached  Washington  on  October  9  created 
considerable  surprise.'  Madison  wrote  Jefferson,  October 
ID,  and  intimated  that  the  American  commissioners  would 
arrive  in  a  few  days  unless  a  sudden  change  should  be 
brouf,ht  about  in  the  British  cabinet  by  the  rupture  of  the 
negotiation,  or  by  the  intelligence  from  America  and  the 
fermentation  taking  place  in  Europe.  Many  people  probably 
felc  that  England  was  changing  the  contest  to  one  of  con- 
quest' Jefferson  believed  that  "we  should  put  our  house  in 
order  for  interminable  war;"  and  he  said  that  in  order  to 
counterbalance  the  intention  of  England  to  conquer  the 
lakes,  the  Northwest,  etc.,  the  United  States  "ought  to  pro- 
pose .  .  the  establishment  of  the  meridian  of  the  mouth  of 
the  Sorel  northwardly  as  the  western  boundary  of  all  her  pos- 
sessions." Jefferson,  who  was  promptly  informed  of  all 
affairs  at  Washington,  as  late  as  the  early  part  of  December 
wrote  that  the  documents  distributed  by  Congress,  and  the 
map  of  Mr.  McUish  illustrating  the  first  British  propo.sals, 
would  prove  to  all  that  "reconquest  [of  the  United  States]  is 
the  ultimate  object  of  Britain."  He  says  that  the  "first  step 
toward  this  is  to  set  a  limit  to  their  expansion  by  taking  from 
them  [Ihe  United  States]  that  noble  country  which  the  fore- 
sight of  their  fathers  provided  for  their  multiplying  and 
needy  offspring."  "As  to  repressing  our  growth,"  he  added, 
"they  might  as  well  attempt  to  repress  the  waves  of  the 
ocean."  Jefferson  believed  that  the  British  commissioners 
had  been  holding  off  to  see  the  issue,  not  of  Vienna,  but  of 
the  Hartford  Convention. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  t'le  policy  of  the  English  ap- 
peared neither  liberal  nor  amicable.  But  it  must  also  be 
borne  in  mind  that  this  was  partly  due,  no  doubt,  to  the  fear 
of  American  conquest.  In  the  reply  of  the  British  commis- 
sioners on  September  4,  they  state  that  the  "policy  of  the 

'  Madison  Papers,  Vol.  7.  leffer-jon  Papers,  2nd  Series,  VdI.  58, 
No.  59. 

MelFL-rson  Papers,  isl  S.*ries,  Vol.  13  (To  Monroe,  Oct.  13;  to 
Madison,  Oct.  15;  to  Mtllisii,  Der.  ic.) 


64 


Neutrality  of  the  American  Lakes. 


United  States  has  become  one  of  conquest  and  aggrandize- 
ment," and  that  England  should  have  military  possession  of 
the  lakes  to  prevent  the  Americans  from  commencing  a  war 
in  the  heart  of  Canada,  and  because  their  possession  was  not 
necessary  to  the  safety  of  the  United  States.'  The  reply  pro- 
posed that  the  south  shore  of  the  lakes  might  be  left  in  pos- 
session of  the  United  States  in  case  they  should  not  build 
fortifications  near  them,  and  declared  that  there  was  no 
desire  to  interfere  with  the  commerce  of  the  United  States 
upon  the  lakes  in  time  of  peace. 

It  was  at  this  point  in  the  negotiation,  Adams  says,  that 
"Bayard  manifested  symptoms  of  concession  on  the  points 
proposed  by  the  British  commissioners,'"  but  all  stood  to- 
gether in  the  reply  of  September  9,  in  which  the  ground  was 
taken  that  Great  Britain  had  a  sufficient  pledge  for  the  se- 
curity of  Canada  from  sudden  invasion  in  the  mass  of  Ameri- 
can commerce  upon  the  ocean — a  commerce  more  valuable 
than  Canada,  and  which  was  exposed  to  the  gref..  superiority 
of  British  forces.  Tt  was  prom|)tly  denied  that  conquest  was 
the  policy  of  the  Ignited  States. 

Thus  the  American  commissioners  remained  firm,  but,  at 
the  same  time,  they  kept  a  peaceful  attitude.  It  was  well  that 
they  did  so.  It  drew  forth  a  better  spirit  in  the  reply  of  the 
British  connnissiouers  on  September  19.  They  stated  that 
as  soon  as  the  Indian  question  was  adjusted  they  felt  confi- 
dent the  question  of  boundary  could  be  settled  to  the  mutual 
satisfaction  of  the  parties. '  Negotiations  luok  a  more  hope- 
ful shape  at  once.  But  peace  was  not  yet  a  certainty.  The 
loss  of  a  battle  to  the  Americans  might  have  encouraged  the 
British  to  hold  out  for  a  boundary  to  the  south  of  the  lakes. 
The  London  Courier  of  September  29  probably  indicates  the 
feeling  of  the  government  when  it  says:  "Peace  .  .  .  mu.st 
be  on  condition  that  America  has  not  a  foot  of  land  on  the 
waters  of  the  St.  Lawrence,  ...  no  settlement  on  the  lakes." 


'  Am.  Slate  Papers,  Kureij;n  Relations,  p.  713. 
^  Adams'  Memoirs,  Vol.  3,  Sept.  6. 

•'Am   State  I'apers,  For.  Rel.,  Vol.  i,  p.  7i''<-     Also  in  "America," 
Vol.  129,  at  Record  OlHce. 


% 


Struggle  for  Control  of  the  Lakes. 


55 


The  United  States  desired  only  to  preserve  her  independ- 
ence entire,  and  to  govern  her  own  territories  without  for- 
eign interference,  and  when,  a  few  days  later,  the  British 
commissioners  offered  their  ultimatiun  upon  the  subject  of 
the  Indian  pacification,  it  was  accepted  as  conformable  to  the 
views  of  the  United  States  Government,  though  Adams 
wanted  to  represent  it  rather  as  a  great  concession,  and  also 
urged  that  it  would  be  a  convenient  policy  to  avow  that  the 
cession  of  Canada  would  be  for  the  interest  of  both  countries. 

From  this  time  negotiations  were  continued  in  a  better 
spirit  of  reciprocity.  On  October  17  tlie  news  of  the  failure 
of  the  P.ritisii  invasion  of  New  York  reached  London.  The 
news  from  Baltimore  and  Fort  Frie  soon  followed.  Clay 
thought  that  the  attitude  which  France  was  taking  at  X'ienna 
would  help  the  United  States  in  securing  an  honorable 
peace,*  but,  in  his  opinion,  the  events  at  Baltimore  and  on 
Lake  Champlain  would  have  much  greater  influence,  "for 
it  is  in  our  own  country  that  at  last  we  must  conquer  the 
peace."  With  no  American  disaster  in  the  North,  peace 
could  soon  be  made. 

Most  difficulties  had  been  removed  by  October  31,  when 
the  conunissioncrs  wrote  that  the  Indian  boundary,  together 
witii  tiic  claim  to  exclusive  control  of  the  lakes,  had  both 
been  given  up  by  the  British.'  The  15ritish  now  clearly  saw 
that  they  could  not  secure  by  treaty  what  they  had  failed  to 
secure  by  force  of  arms.  Wellington  said  they  had  no  right 
to  dcniaiid  territory.'  By  winning  the  naval  supremacy  upon 
the  lakes  the  .Vmericans  were  able  to  secure  the  continuation 
of  the  boundary  of  1783  through  the  middle  of  the  lakes,  and 
to  secure  provisions  by  which  the  dangers  from  the  British 
traders  of  the  Northwest  were  overcome. 


'  Monroe  Papers,  Vol.  4,  Oct.  26.  *  " 

'^Jefferson   Papers,    2nd  Series,    \'ol.    58.     (Monroe   to  JefR-rson, 

Nov.  30.) 
•■' CastlereaRli  Correspondence,   Vol.    10,  p.  t68.     On  October  18, 

Raduirst  IIioukIu  tlie  Britisli  would  be  allowed  to  keep  Michilimacki- 

nac  and  Niagara.     On  Oct.  20,   he  lioped  to  ^c\  a  cession  of  five 

miles  around  Niagara. 


86 


Neutrality  of  the  American  Lakes. 


The  news  of  the  Treaty  of  Ghent,  signed  December  24.  did 
not  reach  America  until  the  Americans,  at  the  battle  of  New 
Orleans,  had  shown  their  ability  to  protect  the  South  as  well 
as  the  North.  The  thinking  people  everywhere  received  the 
news  with  gladness,  with  the  exception  of  some  farmers  on 
the  northern  frontier  and  a  class  of  neople  in  England  who 
wanted  to  send  Wellington  to  America.'  The  expense  of  the 
navy  upon  the  lakes  could  now  be  reduced,"  soldiers  could 
return  to  their  peaceful  citizen  life,  and  the  development  of 
the  country  under  new  opportunities  would  go  forward  with 
greater  rapidity. 

It  was  considered  a  fortunate  thing  for  both  countries  that 
their  minds  could  now  be  turned  from  the  temptations  of 
external  extension  to  the  duties  of  internal  growth.  Jeffer- 
son wrote  that  Quebec  and  Halifax  would  have  been  taken, 
but  that  peace  and  reconciliation  were  better  than  conquest 
by  war.  He  thought,  however,  that  England  had  been  "rid- 
ing upon  a  bag  of  wind,  which  must  blow  out  before  they 
settle  to  the  true  bottom.'"    

'It  was  "mortifying"  to  the  Britisli  oHicers  to  have  to  give  up 
Michilimackinac  and  the  territory  west  of  Lake  Micliii^an.  The  treaty 
was  not  what  they  luul  expected  in  regard  to  the  Indians.  Hut  tiiey 
decided  to  "try  to  gild  the  liitter  pill  which  the  Indians  must  swal- 
low" in  seeing  Mackinac  Island  given  up.  They  expected,  how- 
ever, to  get  a  neiv  fortress  with  a  new  harbor  for  future  naval  forces. 
McDouall,  conmianderat  Michilimackinac,  wrote  to  Hulger,  who  was 
commanding  on  the  upper  Mississippi,  that  he  was  penetnited  with 
grief  at  the  loss  of  hi.;  tine  island,  but  he  stated  that  it  would  give  an 
opportunity  of  ecpiipiiing  such  a  lUet  on  Lake  I>ie  and  Lake  Huron 
as  would  secure  the  coinniiind  of  those  lakes  anil  kiep  open  the 
communication  with  the  Indians.  He  said  that  since  peace  had  been 
concluiled,  a  war  on  their  part  shoi'ld  be  most  sedulously  avoided 
until  the  lleet  on  Lake  Krie  was  restoreil,  and  the  supremacy  of  Lake 
Hui'tn  was  obtained.  {.See  letters  of  April  25,  May  i,  and  May  2, 
1815,  Wis.  Hist.  Coll.,  \'ol.  13,  J).  133,  etc.) 

'^  In  England  there  was  a  feeling  of  uneasiness  as  to  the  policy  of 
the  United  States  in  regard  to  Canad.i.  Marquis  Wellesley,  in  a 
speech  before  the  Lords,  April  13,  1815,  said  that  war  had  turned 
America  from  the  pursuits  ot  peace  and  hail  formed  a  great  military 
and  naval  power  to  act  on  the  lake  frontier. 

'JelVerson  Papers,  ist  Series,  Vol.  14.  {To  Francis  C.  Gray, 
March,  1815.) 


IIM 


i 


h  H 


Struggle  for  Control  of  the  Lakes. 


67 


ive  up 

;  treaty 

It  they 

L  svval- 

■■> 

1,  how- 

forces. 

..'; 

ho  was 

-7' 

d  witli 

;ive  an 

Huron 

jn  the 

i  been 

'oided 

Lake 

i" 

klay  2, 

.      ^i- 

li(  y  of 

-— 

,  in  a 

iirned 

liiary 

-^ 

Gray, 

_:V 

■A 

He  was  not  vindictive  in  what  he  said,  but  he  had  not  de- 
spaired of  the  republic,  nor  lost  confidence  in  its  resources. 
"If  they  go  on,"  he  said,  "they  may  force  upon  us  the  motto 
'Carthago  dclcnda  est,'  and  some  Scipio  Amcricanus  will  leave 
to  posterity  the  problem  of  conjecturing  where  stood  once 
the  ancient  and  splendid  city  of  London."  He  hoped  that 
the  good  sense  of  both  parties  would  concur  in  traveling  the 
paths  of  peace,  of  afifection  and  of  reciprocal  interest,  and  that 
the  officials  would  do  their  best  to  cool  the  temper  of  both 
nations  and  to  eradicate  the  war  feeling  which  the  news- 
papers had  nourished.' 

It  was  natural  that  the  difficulties  arising  frcm  the  recent 
irritation  on  the  border — greater  in  the  United  States,  be- 
cause it  reached  the  bosom  of  every  citizen — should  not  dis- 
appear at  once,"  and  passion  was  assumed,  artificially,  by 
some  for  political  effect;  but,  by  the  prudence  r^  the  two 
governments,  it  was  hoped  that  the  i'lvcctivc  might,  in  time, 
be  reduced  to  the  minimum.  Jefferson  and  ^ladison  had 
been  wrongfully  abused  as  the  enemies  of  England.  Like 
Monroe  and  Adams,  and  other  leaders,  they  rose  above  the 
passions  of  the  hour.  The  influence  of  such  men,  at  such  a 
time,  is  invaluable.  They  set  a  good  example  to  citizens  of 
less  experience.  They  can  see  the  dangers  of  demagogues 
upon  the  overcrcdulous  or  upon  the  ready  admirers  of  atti- 
tudes bellicose,  and  they  can  do  much  to  stimulate  a  rational 
feeling.  It  was  so  with  these  men.  They  have  added  honor 
to  the  country  which  they  served.  And  the  generations  of 
men  that  look  back  upon  these  fathers  of  the  formative 
period  of  the  American  republic  will  honor  them  more  that 
they  did  not  nourish  a  feeling  of  hatred,  but  that  they  fav- 
ored the  burial  of  the  "red  rag."  Jefferson  wrote  to  Monroe, 
October  i6,  i8i6,  concerning  the  "inscription  for  the  Capi- 
tol which  the  British  burnt,"  that  it  "should  be  brief  and  so 
no  passion  can  be  imputed  to  it."    He  said  that  instead  of 


'JefTerson  Papers,  ist  Series,  Vol.  14.     (To  Mr.  Maury,  June  16.) 
'Jefferson  PaiJers,  ist  Series,  Vol.  14.     (To  Sinclair.) 


58 


Neutrality  of  the  Americayi  Lakes. 


perpetuating  hatred  "should  we  not  rather  begin  to  open 
ourselves  to  other  and  more  rational  dispositions?'"  In  a 
letter  to  his  friend,  Sir  John  Sinclair,  with  whom  he  had 
renewed  correspondence  after  the  war,  the  sage  of  Monti- 
cello  wrote:  'The  past  should  be  left  to  history,  and  be 
smothered  in  the  living  mind.  Time  is  drawing  the  curtain 
on  me.  I  could  make  my  bow  better  if  I  had  hope  of  seeing 
our  countries  shake  hands  together." 

The  lake  boundary  and  the  Northwest  had  been  secured 
by  the  United  States,  the  gates  of  the  temple  of  Janus  had 
been  closed,  and  two  kindred  peoples  were  encouraged  to 
occupy  the  same  continent  in  peace. 

'Jefferson  Papers,  ist  Series,  Vol.  14,  Oct.  16,  1816. 


IV. 

AGREEMENT    OE    1817. 

Reduction  of  Naval  Forces  Upon  the  Lakes. 

Peace  had  been  concluded  at  Ghent  amidst  the  festivities 
of  Christmas  Eve  in  1814,  and  as  soon  as  the  slovv-saiHng 
craft  of  that  day  could  traverse  the  waters  of  the  Atlantic  the 
news  was  proclaimed  in  America  on  each  side  of  the  lakes. 
But  entire  peace  could  not  be  guaranteed  by  proclamation. 
How  was  the  temple  of  Janus  to  be  kept  closed?  Manifestly, 
the  most  apparent  danger  of  future  collisions  lay  in  the 
relations  of  the  two  peoples  along  the  northern  limits  of  the 
United  States.  While  Jefferson  was  trying  to  "eradicate  the 
war  feeling  which  the  newspapers  had  nourished,"  and  wish- 
ing for  the  two  "countries  to  shake  hands  together,"  what 
measures  should  be  adopted  to  lessen  the  possible  sources  of 
future  misunderstandings,  as  well  as  to  accelerate  the  return 
of  fraternal  feelings,  desires  and  actions?  The  development 
of  the  Northwest  was  affected  by  the  presence  of  I'ritish 
troops  in  Canada  and  of  British  vessels  on  the  lakes.  How 
should  this  danger  be  avoided?  These  were  questions  which 
the  wise,  well-trained  leaders  of  1815  had  before  their  minds. 

Perhaps  no  better  leaders  could  have  been  selected  for  the 
hour.  They  consulted  only  the  interests  of  the  country;  they 
had  no  axe  to  grind  at  the  expense  of  public  peace.  Their 
statesmanship  did  not  sink  into  morbid  abuse  of  some  fancied 
enemy.  They  and  the  people  for  whom  they  stood,  when 
they  looked  back  and  saw  that  the  world  had  moved,  began 
to  look  forward  for  the  things  that  should  grow  in  the  new 
era  of  quickening  activity,  when  great  cities  would  be  erected 
along  the  south  shores  of  the  limitary  lakes. 


60 


Nentra/Hy  of  the  Amcn'can  Lakes. 


"The  statesmen  of  that  period,  sincerely  desirous  of  estab- 
Hshing  a  lasting  peace,  applied  their  minds  on  both  sides  to 
effective  arrangements  which  would  render  these  waters 
neutral."  The;-  saw  at  once  that  if  peace  were  merely  to  lead 
to  a  perpetual  race  in  naval  construction  such  a  peace  would 
be  only  temporary  and  expensive.  Building  of  naval  vessels 
would  have  gone  on  ad  libitum,  possibly  ad  inHnitmn,  greatly 
to  the  emolument  of  .'ihipbuildcrs  perhaps,  but  at  the  risk  of 
strained  relations  between  the  United  States  and  Canada. 

The  first  suggestion  of  the  idea  of  making  the  lake  region 
neutral  appears  to  have  originated  during  the  administration 
of  President  Washington,  and  with  the  President  himself,  as 
a  means  of  preserving  peace  at  home.'  On  May  6,  1794,  Mr. 
Randolph,  Secretary  of  State,  wrote  to  Air.  Jay,  who  had 
been  sent  to  negotiate  a  treaty  with  England,  that  in  case  the 
"subject  of  a  commercial  treaty  be  listened  to"  it  would  be 
well  to  consider  as  one  object  the  following:  "In  peace  no 
troops  to  be  kept  within  a  limited  distance  of  the  lakes." 
There  is  no  record  of  the  consideration  of  this  subject  in  the 
negotiations.  Jay's  treaty  clearly  gave  Oeat  Britain  the 
advantage  on  the  lakes,  much  to  the  disappointment  of  Mr. 
Madison  and  others,"  but  probably  no  better  terms  could 
have  been  secured  at  that  time.  It  j)ermittcd  British  sub- 
jects "to  navigate  all  the  lakes,  rivers  and  waters  of  the 
United  States  up  to  the  highest  ports  of  entry,"  but  it  was 
expressly  stated  that  "vessels  of  the  United  States  were  not 
to  be  admitted  into  the  seaports,  harbors,  bays  or  creeks  of 
his  Majesty's  American  dominions."  By  it  the  lake  trade  fell 
into  the  hands  of  the  British,  and  by  means  of  the  lake  trade 
they  secured  an  influence  over  the  Indians  of  the  Northwest 
which  they  were  al)le  to  retain  till  the  War  of  1812. 

During  that  war  the  Americans  were  at  first  determined 
to  shut  the  British  out  from  the  lakes.  In  this  they  were 
largely  successful  by  force  of  arms,  but  in  diplomacy  it  was 

'American  State  Papers,  Foreign  Relations,  Vol.  i,  p.  433. 
^  Madison  Papers,  \'ol.  5. 


.1 


As;nri)unt  of  iSjj. 


M 


nined 
were 
t  was 


considered  inexpedient  to  insist  upon  securing  control  of  the 
lakes.  Such  a  policy  would  probably  have  broken  off  nego- 
tiations at  the  time,  for  Great  Britain  would  hardly  have 
given  up  such  a  great  advantage  to  conmiercc,  especially 
when  she  feared  the  dangers  of  conquest  of  her  upper  ]-)rov- 
inces  by  the  Americans.  By  these  considerations  the  Ameri- 
can commissioners  at  Ghent  were  led  to  stand  for  "terms  of 
reciprocity  honorable  to  both  countries."  When  the  British 
connnissioners  were  proposing  that  Great  Britain  should 
have  military  occupation  of  the  lakes,  the  Americans  asked 
only  a  renewal  of  the  former  boundary  through  the  middle 
of  the  lakes. 

Lord  Castlercagh  from  the  first  desired  to  prevent  a  con- 
test for  naval  ascendency  upon  the  lakes.  In  his  general 
instructions  to  the  British  commissioners  at  Ghent  there  is  no 
mention  of  the  subject  of  naval  vessels  on  ihc  lakes,  but  in  a 
draft  of  "instructions  relative  to  the  boundaries  of  Canada," 
which  is  marked  Not  used,  there  is  at  the  close  :'  "N.  B.  In 
order  to  put  an  end  to  the  jealousies  which  may  arise  by  the 
construction  of  ships  of  war  on  the  lakes,  it  should  be  pro- 
posed that  the  two  contracting  parties  should  reciprocally 
bind  themselves  not  to  construct  any  ships  of  war  on  any  of 
the  lakes;  and  should  entirely  dismantle  those  which  are  now 
in  commission,  or  are  preparing  for  service." 

This  unused  draft  is  not  dated,  but  it  was  probably  writ- 
ten in  July,  1814.  For  aome  reason  it  was  considered  expe- 
dient to  make  a  less  liberal  proj)osition  upon  this  subject. 
By  August  it  appeared  to  Lord  Castlereagh  that  a  boundary 
line  through  the  middle  of  the  lakes,  with  the  right  of  each 
country  to  arm  both  on  water  and  shore,  would  tend  to  create 
a  "perpetual  contest  for  naval  ascendency  in  peace  as  well  as 
in  war."  lie  therefore  thought  it  necessary,  for  the  sake  of 
peace  and  economy,  "to  decide  to  which  power  these  waters 
should,  in  a  military  sense,  exclusively  belong."  In  his  in- 
structions to  the  British  conmiissioners  on  August  14  he 
said: 


'  "America,  "  \'ol.  12.S,  Public  Kccoicl  Otticc,  London. 


62 


Niutrality  of  the  American  Lakes. 


"Upon  tlic  point  of  frontier  you  may  state  that  tlic  views 
of  the  Britisli  (lovcrnnicnt  are  strictly  defensive.  They  con- 
sider the  course  of  the  lakes  from  Lake  Ontario  to  Lake  Su- 
perior both  inclusive  to  be  the  natural  military  frontier  of  the 
British  possessions  in  Xorth  America.'  As  the  weaker  power 
on  the  North  American  continent,  the  least  capable  of  acting 
ofifensively  and  the  most  exposed  t<j  sudden  invasion,  ( ireat 
Britain  considers  itself  entitled  to  claim  the  use  of  those  lakes 
as  a  military  barrier." 

Lord  CastlcreaRh  stated  that  Great  Britain  should  also 
have  military  connnand  of  the  American  shores  of  the  lakes, 
thou.i;Ii  ho  was  "disiKJsed  to  leave  the  sovereitj^nty  (jf  the  soil 
undi-^turbed  and,  incident  to  it,  the  free  commercial  naviga- 
tion of  the  lakes,"  provided  the  American  ( lovernment 
wm  d  stipulate  "not  to  i)reserve  or  construct  any  fortifica- 
tions upon  or  within  a  limited  distance  of  the  shores,  or  main- 
tain or  construct  any  armed  vessel  upon  the  lakes  in  rjues- 
tion  or  u])on  the  rivers  which  cmj)ty  themselves  into  the 
same." 

Lord  Castlereagh's  jjroposal  to  disarm  was  not  based  upon 
the  principle  of  reciprocity.  It  may,  however,  have  suj:^- 
gcsted  to  the  minds  of  .\merican  commissioners  the  idea  of 
mutual  disarmament.  There  is  an  intimation  of  the  idea,  at 
least,  in  their  reply  to  the  British  commissioners  (dated  .\ug- 
ust  24,  1814)  in  which  they  are  "at  a  loss  to  discover  by  what 
rule  of  perfect  reciprocity  the  United  States  can  be  retiuired 
to  renounce  their  equal  right  of  maintaining  a  naval  force 
upon  those  lakes,  and  of  fortifying  their  own  shores,  while 
Cireat  Britain  reserves  exclusively  the  corresponding  rights  to 
herself."'  Tbougli  the  L'nited  .States  had  no  guns  upon  the 
lakes  before  the  war,  she  did  not  proi)ose  to  give  up  her  guns 
now  and  go  back  to  her  former  condition  in  this  respect.  She 
desired  to  see  England  jjropose  a  more  liberal  and  amicable 
policy  toward  America. 


'  Manjiiis  Wellesley,  in  a  speech  before  the  Lords,  on  April  13, 
1815,  said  he  could  not  st-e  where  the  doctrine  of  the  "natural  limit 
of  Canada  '  south  of  the  lakes  had  originated. 


Agreetnent  of  iSiy, 


68 


The  novcrnnicnt  at  \\'ashins:ton  early  in  the  war  appre- 
hended what  would  be  the  probable  policy  of  the  IJritish. 
Monroe  instructed  the  commissioners,  April  15,  1813,  under 
the  proffered  Russian  mediation:  "You  will  avoid  also  any 
stipulation  which  might  restrain  the  United  States  from  in- 
creasing their  naval  force  to  any  extent  they  may  think 
proper  on  the  lakes  held  in  connnon,  or  excluding  the  British 
traders  from  navigation  of  the  lakes  and  rivers  exclusively 
within  our  own  jurisdiction."  At  this  time,  it  should  be 
noted,  past  experience  and  conditions  made  it  appear  neces- 
sary for  the  United  States  to  keep  a  sujieriority  of  naval 
force  on  the  lakes.  Neutralization  of  these  waters  was  prob- 
ably not  thought  of  at  that  time.  Even  as  late  as  January  28, 
1814,  Monroe  thought  that  participation  in  the  dominion 
and  navigation  of  the  lakes  by  Great  I'ritain  would  be  a 
source  of  danger  of  the  renewal  of  the  war. 

It  appears  that  the  first  definite  proposition  of  disarma- 
ment on  the  lakes  was  made  by  Mr.  Gallatin.  It  was  on  Sep- 
tember 6,  1814,  when  it  seemed  that  negotiations  could  not 
proceed.  IJayard  manifested  some  .symptoms  of  concession 
to  the  iiritish  proposals,  and  Mr.  Gallatin  proposed  to  offer 
at  least  to  refer  to  the  United  States  Government  a  "stipula- 
tion for  disarming  on  both  sides  of  the  lakes.'"  Adams  ob- 
jected to  this  as  not  being  in  accordance  with  positive  in- 
structions. Here  the  matter  dropped.  But  it  was  probably 
further  discussed  by  the  American  commissioners,  as  a  sub- 
sequent note  seems  to  indicate.  Their  firm  but  friendly 
reply  of  Septcndjer  9  was  a  factor  in  drawing  from  the  I'rit- 
ish  connnissioners  a  more  favorable  reply,  in  which  they 
asserted  that  they  had  "never  stated  that  the  exclusive  mili- 
tary possession  of  the  lakes  .  .  .  was  a  sine  qua  non  in  the 
negotiation,"  and  that  after  the  Indian  question  should  be 
adjusted  they  could  make  a  final  proposition  on  the  subject 
of  Canadian  boundaries,  "so  entirely  founded  on  principles 
of  moderation  and  justice"  that  they  felt  confident  it  could 


'Adams:  Wrilinjjs  of  Albert  (Jallalin,  VdI.  i,   p.  640.     Also  see 
J.  Q.  Adams'  Memoirs,  Sept.  19,  1S14. 


v 


04 


Ncittralilv  of  tlf  Awericatt  I.akrs. 


not  be  rejected.'  Tlie  nature  of  this  proposition  is  not  stated. 
It  was  never  brought  forward,  nor  vvas  any  exjjlanation  piven 
of  wiiat  was  iiileiidid  by  the  offer.  lUit  the  .American  com- 
missioners siii)i)osi'd  tbey  intended  to  propijse  the  mutual 
reduction  of  armaments,  and  on  September  j6  pledj^^-d  them- 
selves to  meet  such  a  proposition  with  perfect  reciprocity."'' 

This  supposition  is  not  stated  in  any  of  the  official  notes 
to  the  Department  of  State,  (iallatin,  however,  wrote  to  Mr. 
Monroe  on  ( )ctober  j6:  "The  ri^ht  of  jjreservin^'  our  naval 
forces  on  the  iaies  to  any  extent  we  j)lease  is  a  sine  qua  non 
by  our  instructions.  Suj)posinj,'  the  liritish  to  propt)se  a 
mutual  restriction  in  that  respect,  either  ])artial  or  total, 
should  we  still  adiiere  to  the  sine  (jiia  nonT'  Clay  wrote  a 
private  note  to  Mcjnroe  on  the  same  day,  in  which  he  says 
that  recent  events  at  Vienna  and  in  America  had  encour- 
ajijcd  a  lujpe  for  an  early  peace,  but  he  does  not  allude  to  Gal- 
latin's note.  It  is  probable  that  Cjallatin  wrote  without  con- 
sultinjf  the  (jtlicr  members  of  the  commissicju.  No  reply  to 
his  n(jte  is  found.  In  fact,  if  one  was  ever  sent  it  could  not 
have  reached  him  until  after  Christmas  Eve,  when  the  terms 
of  peace  had  been  ajjrecd  upon. 

Gouveneur  Morris,  who  had  been  desirous  for  peace,  and 
not  desirous  for  Canada,  during  the  nej^cjtiations  also  sug- 
gested the  idea  of  disarmament.  But  his  idea  differed  from 
that  of  Gallatin  in  being  proposed  as  a  matter  of  econoni\ 
On  October  17,  1814,  he  wrote  to  Hon.  William  Welles:  "Ji 
would  be  wise  to  stipulate  that  neither  party  should  have 
shii)s  of  war  on  the  lakes  nor  forts  on  their  shores.  Both  arc 
an  idle  and  useless  expense."  iie  added:  "If  they  had  there 
forty  ships  of  the  line  and  a  dozen  Gibraltars,  we  could  with 
great  ease  take  Canada." 


'  "America,"  Vol.  129. 

''  Mr.  Clay,  on  Oct.  9,  liowcver,  was  for  n-jecliiij^  any  proposition 
to  (lisarni  upon  tlu'  lakts  il  a  proposed  arlicie;  Ijy  tliu  British  (nlti- 
maUiin  on  Iiidiati  |)arification)  uas  admitted  ;  jjecause  he  consiiiered 
tiiat  tile  two  articles  toKellier  would  deliver  the  whole  western  country 
up  to  tlie  mercy  of  liie  Indians.     (Adams'  Memoirs.) 


.'Igreemeni  of  iSiy.  68 

The  work  of  reducing  the  expense  of  naval  forces  on  the 
lakes  began  very  soon  after  the  peace.  Mr.  Jackson,  of  Vir- 
ginia, on  February  17,  1815,  offered  a  resolution  that  the 
naval  conunittee  be  instructed  to  inquire  and  report  to  what 
extent  '}-<'  *  'nited  States  navy  on  the  lakes  could  he  reduced 
consi  '•'■  ;rh  public  interest.'  It  was  felt  that  while  the 
United  Su"  -.  fijrccs  ought,  to  some  extent,  to  be  regulated 
by  those  of  Great  Britain,  all  useless  expenditures  should  be 
retrenched.*  It  was  not  the  policy  of  the  United  States 
Gfjvernn-jenl  ro  fight  to  prevent  a  possible  injury  at  a  distant 
day.  The  government  expected  peace,  and  began  to  prepare 
for  it  By  Act  of  February  27,  181 5,  the  President  was 
authorized  "to  cause  all  armed  vessels  of  the  United  States  on 
the  lakes  to  be  sold  or  laid  up,  except  such  as  he  may  deem 
nece-~sary  to  enforce  proper  execution  of  revenue  laws;  such 
vessels  being  first  divested  of  their  armament,  tackle,  and 
furniture,  which  are  to  be  carefully  preserved.'" 

When  Kapokon,  dissatisfied  with  the  small  portion  of  the 
map  of  Europe  that  had  been  allotted  him,  issued  forth 
from  Elba  to  dbturb  the  congress  of  map  revisers  at  Vienna, 
the  danger  of  a  renewal  of  the  war  was  apprehended  in 
^me^lca-  Madison  wrote  Monroe  on  May  5:  "If  Napoleon 
It.  rest'^re<3,  England  and  France  will  again  pillage  America." 
But  he  Mieved  that,  while  the  United  States  must  maintain 
!  :■  ground  and  fight  for  her  rights,  she  must  avoid  being  a 
party  to  the  European  war.  The  nation  was  unwilling  to  re- 
linquish the  rights  for  which  it  had  contended,  but,  at  the 
same  time,  it  -  as  ready  to  support  the  government  in  such 
measures  as  «cre  ~best  adapted  to  prevent  a  renewal  of  the 
war."  The  continuation  of  the  war  between  France  and 
England  v. as  fortunately  averted,  and  thus  one  source  of 
possible  contention  between  England  and  the  United  States 
was  remove*. 

There  were  s<ireral  sources  of  dissension  existing  in  181 5, 
the  early  adjustment  of  which  was  considered  advisable. 


'  House  JounaaJ,  Vol.  9.  -  Monroe  Papers,  Vol.  5.  No.  629. 

6  ^Statutes,  III,  217. 


60 


Nentra/ity  of  the  American   Lakes. 


Those  which    cMulang^crcd    the    peace    between  the  United 
States  and  Canada  were: 

(i)  Restlessness  and  hostility  of  the  Indians  on  the  fron- 
tier. 

(2)  Condnct  of  the  British  local  authorities  in  Canada. 

(3)  Desertion  of  British  soldiers  to  the  American  side. 

(4)  British  armaments  on  the  lakes. 

Mutual  surrender  of  the  frontier  forts  was  not  made  at 
once  after  the  war.  Tlicrc  v»ere  suspicions  of  insincerity  on 
both  sides.'  Dallas  wrote  Monroe  on  May  28  that  "we  must 
be  on  our  fjuard."  Hosiility  of  the  Indians  had  not  ceased. 
Some  of  t'-."  liritish  officers  had  persisted  in  inlluencing 
them.  T'.  was  found,  however,  that  they  showed  a  disposition 
for  peace  as  fast  as  the  I»ritish  gave  up  the  jjosts.  By  the 
connnercial  convention  of  1815,  the  Unite-  States,  in  the 
interests  of  peace,  refused  to  allow  the  B;it"sh  to  trade  with 
the  Indians  in  United  States  territory,  though  it  cost  her  the 
use  of  the  St.  Lawrence  river. 

Troubles  were  also  arising  concerning  jurisdiction.  The 
Americans  complained  t)f  the  conduct  of  the  liritish  officers 
in  pursuing  deserters  into  American  territory,  and  in  other- 
wise violating  international  usage.  On  the  other  hand  the 
Britii-h  complained  of  the  attempts  of  a  United  States  oflicer 
on  the  frontier  to  seduce  soldiers  from  the  liritish  service. 

The  authorities  at  Washington  saw  a  greater  proi)able 
source  of  future  trouble  in  the  evident  intention  of  the  British 
to  increase  their  naval  force  upon  the  lakes.  They  had  built 
several  new  vessels  just  before  the  peace,  and  the  London 
ntwspa))ers  in  August,  181 5,  had  announceii  that  the  British 
cabinet  had  determined  not  only  to  maintain,  but  a'so  to 
augment  the  armed  naval  force  on  the  lakes.  The  fact  that 
an  .\merican  merc'iaut  vessel  upon  Lake  Erie,  where  the 
AmericaviS  had  been  ilismantling  their  vessels,  had  been  fired 
upon  by  a  liritish  armed  vessel  will  show  that  there  was 
reason  for  fearing  the  results  of  further  augmentation.' 


'  Monroe  Taprrs,  Vol.  15. 

'' Campbell:  Political  tlislory  of  Michigan. 


Agreevient  of  iSry. 


m 


1.    The 

officers 

1  other- 

11(1   tlie 

,  officer 

vice. 

■()l)al)lo 

.;■: 

lirilish 

'-  'i 

(I  l)uilt 

.oiidoii 

r>riush 

.'  I 

I'so  to 

ct  that 

■■/; 

■re  the 

1 

y 

11  fired 

e  was 

2 

i 

On  July  22,  when  taking  measures  to  prevent  a  United 
States  officer  from  influencing  soldiers  to  desert  from  the 
r.ritish  service,  Mr.  ^Monroe,  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Raker  (who 
was  temporarily  representing  the  I'ritish  riovernment  at 
Washington),  seems  to  intimate  the  necessity  of  a  reciprocal 
stipulation  in  regard  to  naval  forces.'  At  a  later  date,  prob- 
ably in  November,  Mr.  Monroe  had  a  conversation  with  Mr. 
P.aker  concerning  the  subject.  On  December  6,  after  re- 
porting to  Mr.  l)aker  an  inquiry  into  the  case  of  Lieutenant 
V'idal,  who  had  been  fined  for  riot  while  pursuing  offenders 
into  .American  territory,  Mr.  Monroe  wrote  :^  "This  Govern- 
ment is  sincerely  desirous,  as  I  had  the  honor  to  intimate  to 
you  in  a  late  interview,  to  make  such  arrangements  relating 
to  the  force  to  be  kept  on  the  lakes,  and  to  the  intercourse 
between  the  I'nited  Stales  and  the  British  provinces  in  that 
c]uarter,  as  will  effectually  prevent  these  evils." 

John  Quincy  Adams  was  at  this  time  minister  of  the 
I'liited  States  to  London.  The  information  which  he  had 
ser.i  on  August  29  as  to  the  intentions  of  the  British  Gov- 
ernment to  increase  its  force  on  the  lakes  was  confirmed  by 
later  news  from  that  quarter,  which  showed  that  preliminary 
measures  had  been  taken.  This  arming  appeared  foolish,  for 
it  is  hardly  likely  that  I'.nglaiid  couid  have  competed  with  the 
V'niied  States  on  the  lakes  if  a  jjolicy  was  adopted  of  having 
rival  Heels  to  parade  those  waters  in  time  of  peace.  But  the 
l^iited  States,  anxious  for  the  preservation  of  peace,  was  dis- 
l)oscd  to  disarm  there.  Secretary  Monroe  wrote  to  Mr. 
Adams,  November  16: 

"Jt  is  evident,  if  each  party  augments  its  force  there,  v/ith 
a  view  to  obtain  the  ascendancy  over  the  other,  that  vast 
expense  will  be  incurred  and  the  danger  of  collision  aug- 
mented in  like  degree.  The  President  is  sincerely  desirous  to 
prevent  an  evil  which  it  is  presumed  is  equally  to  be  deprecated 


'No.  2  Notes  from  .State   Department,  p.  no.     (To   British  Lega- 
tion  at  \Vasliinj;;ton.) 
"No.  2  Notes  from  State  Department. 


68 


Neutrality  of  the  American  I  akes. 


by  both  governments.  He  therefore  authorizes  you  to  pro- 
pose to  the  British  Government  such  an  arranf;;-ement  re- 
specting the  naval  force  to  be  kept  on  the  lakes  by  both  gov- 
ernments as  will  demonstrate  their  pacific  policy  and  secure 
their  peace.  He  is  willing  to  confine  it,  on  each  side,  to  a 
certain  moderate  number  of  armetl  vessels,  and  the  smaller 
the  number  the  more  agreeable  to  him;  or  to  abstain  alto- 
gether from  an  armed  force  beyond  that  used  for  revenue. 
You  will  bring  this  subject  under  the  consideration  of  the 
British  Government  immediatelv  after  the  receipt  of  this 
letter.'" 

In  accordance  with  these  instructions,  Mr.  Adams 
brought  the  matter  to  the  attention  of  Lord  Castlercagh  on 
January  25,  1816.'  He  called  his  attention  to  the  fact  that 
Canada  had  been  the  source  of  disagreement  in  the  past,  and 
that  it  might  be  a  source  of  "great  and  frequent  animosities 
hereafter,  unless  guarded  against  by  the  vigilance,  firnmess, 
and  decidedly  pacific  dispositions  of  the  two  governments." 
The  proposal  of  Adams  to  disarm  on  the  lakes  was  well  re- 
ceived by  Lord  Castlereagh.  lie  said  that  everything  be- 
yond what  was  necssary  to  prevent  smuggling  was  "calcu- 
lated only  to  produce  mischief;"  but  he  was  cautious,  and 
was  inclined  to  look  farther  than  to  the  ])acific  disposition 
which  was  manifested.  As  at  Ghent,  he  still  thought  that  the 
"lakes  should  belong  to  our  party,  thereby  rendering  arma- 
ments unnecessary."  Looking  with  suspicion  to  the  advan- 
tage of  the  Americans  in  being  nearer  the  lakes,  he  still 
thought  that  England  as  the  ivcakcr  party  should  have  con- 
trolled them,  and  that  in  order  to  preserve  peace  they  should 
have  been  made  a  "large  and  wide  natural  separation  be- 
tween the  two  territories."  He  feared  that  an  engagement 
for  mutual  disarmament  would  give  the  United  States  too 
nmch  advantage  in  case  of  war.  To  this  Adams  replied  that 
the  engagement  would  be  in  favor  of  Great  Britain;  that  the 

'  Instructions  to  U.  S.  Ministers,  No.  8. 

'  Adams'  Memoirs,  Vol,  3.    Also  in  Adams'  despatches  to  Monroe. 


m 


Agreenteut  of  iSij. 


United  States  would  have  her  hands  tied  until  the  moment 
of  actual  war,  and  that  it  was  impossible  for  war  to  arise  sud- 
denly without  a  condition  of  things  which  would  give  Great 
Britain  sufficient  time  to  get  ready  to  build  armaments  on 
the  lakes  at  the  same  time  as  the  United  States. 

Lord  Castlereagh  proposed  to  submit  the  proposals  to  his 
government  for  its  consideration,  but  after  the  conference 
had  ended.  Mr.  Adams  had  little  hope  for  even  an  arrange- 
ment to  limit  the  force  to  be  kept  in  actual  service.'  While 
P.athurst  was  the  only  real  warlike  man  in  the  ministry,  the 
apparent  disinclination  of  Lord  Castlereagh,  who  was  prob- 
ably better  dis|)osed  than  the  rest  of  the  ministry,  did  not 
seem  a  favorable  indication.  Adams  felt  that  the  British 
ministry  suspected  some  strategic  point  to  be  at  the  bottom 
of  tlic  proposition.  The  "frank  and  unsuspecting  confi- 
dence" in  which  the  idea  originated  had  not  been  appreci- 
ated. Tie  desired  that  peace  should  be  cemeiUed  by  "that 
miuual  reliaiice  on  good  faith,  far  better  adapted  to  the  main- 
tenance of  national  harmony  than  the  jealous  and  exasper- 
ating defiance  o\  complete  armor."  On  March  21,  he  re- 
newed the  proposal  to  "nuitually  and  equally  disarm  upon  the 
Amcrir.m  lakes  "  and.  with  the  hope  that  it  might  be  enter- 
tained in  the  same  sincerely  amicable  sjiirit  in  which  it  was 
made,  he  empiiasized  the  fact  that  there  were  abundant  se- 
ciuitics  against  the  possibility  of  any  sudden  attack  upon  the 
colonies  which  the  "guarded  and  cautious  policy"  of  CJreat 
Britain  might  fear.' 

But  the  debates  in  Parliament  gave  little  evidence  that  the 
proposal  would  be  considered.  They  were  upon  the  prin- 
ciple of  preserving  peace  by  being  prepared  for  war.  An 
element  in  both  countries  was  urging  this  policy,  not  be- 
cause there  was  any  danger  of  war.  perhaps,  but  rather  to 
keep  up  with  other  lines  of  development.  Mr.  Goulburn, 
wlio  had  been  one  of  the  British  commissioners  at  Ghent, 


Ion  rue. 


'  Adams'  Dfspatclu-s,  Jan.  31,  i8ifi. 
'No.  20  Desp.ilchcs.  Mar.  22. 


f  ' 


Ife 


70 


Neidralily  of  the  American  Lakes. 


wrote  to  Mr.  Clay  (^^arch  8,  1816)  as  follows:  "You  are 
fightinj:^  the  same  battle  in  America  that  we  arc  here,  i.  e., 
putting  peace  establishnients  on  a  footing  not  unbecoming 
the  growth  of  population  and  empire  in  which  they  arc  to  be 
maintained.  It  is  impossible  that  either  country  should  feel 
jealous  of  the  other  so  long  as  the  augmentation  does  not 
exceed  the  necessity  of  the  case,  and  I  have  not  heard  an 
argument  anywhere  to  prove  that  it  does  so  exceed  in  either 
case.  I  can  relieve  your  apprehensions  as  to  the  hostile 
movement  of  England  in  any  part  of  the  globe."  '  This  was 
certainly  a  friendly  statement  of  the  case.  Mr.  Adams,  \\o\\- 
ever,  did  not  take  the  same  view  of  the  matter,  lie  was 
watching  the  speeches  of  the  "Jingoes,"  and  they  were  more 
than  a  nightmare  upon  his  mind."  In  a  letter  to  Mr.  Monroe 
on  March  30  he  said: 

"In  all  the  late  debates  in  Parliament  upon  what  they  call 
their  Military  and  Naval  Peace  Establishment  the  prosy)ect 
of  a  new  war  with  the  United  States  has  been  distinctly  held 
up  by  the  ministers  and  admitted  by  the  opposition  as  a  solid 
reason  for  enormous  and  unparalleled  expenditure  and 
preparation  in  Canada  and  Nova  Scotia.  We  hear  nothing 
now  about  the  five  fir  fr'gates  and  the  bit>  of  stri])ed  burning. 
The  strain  is  in  a  higher  mood.  Lord  Castlereagh  talks  of 
the  great  and  growing  military  power  of  the  United  States. 
The  Marcpiis  of  Lansdowne,  an  opposition  leader  and  one  of 
the  loudest  trnmpi'ters  for  retrenchment  and  economy,  still 
commends  the  ministers  for  having  been  Waten  into  the 
policy  of  having  a  naval  superiority  upon  the  lakes.  .And 
one  of  the  lords  of  the  admiralty'  told  the  House  of  Com- 
mons last  Monday  that  bimiboat  expeditions  and  pinchbeck 
administrations  would  do  no  longer  for  Canada;  that  ling- 


'  Cotton  :  Corres.  of  Clay,  p.  52. 

'See  I'.irlia.  Debates,  Vol.  yy,  p.  375. 

•"*  Mr.  K.  («ordoii.  In  liis  spet-cli  of  Mar.  25,  lie  spoke  of  tlie  ^;ro\v- 
vn'f,  Ameritaii  navy  and  the  danRer  of  liostility.  lie  said:  "Her 
3-cleikers  now  sail  upon  fresh  water,"  and  it  was  pinchback  economy 
to  kei  p  down  the  Hritisli  iia\  \ . 


f 


'TV 


iyiiF 


Agreement  of  1S17. 


71 


lishtncn  must  lay  their  account  for  fic^litinjT  battles  in  fleets  of 
three-deckers  on  the  North  American  lakes.  All  this  is  upon 
the  principle  of  preserving  peace  by  being  prepared  for  war. 
But  it  shows  to  demonstration  what  will  be  the  fate  of  the 
proposal  for  disarming." 

Adams,  in  his  letter  to  Lord  Castlereagh  on  March  21.  had 
shown  the  evil  effects  of  an  armed  peace  on  the  lakes.'  Be- 
sides the  expense,  it  would  "operate  as  a  continual  stinnilus 
of  suspicion  and  of  ill  will"  between  the  people  on  the  fron- 
tier. He  believed  that  the  "moral  and  political  tendency  of 
such  a  system  must  be  to  war  and  not  to  peace."  The  condi- 
tion of  affairs  was  certainly  not  such  as  to  encourage  him  to 
expect  nuich  consideration  of  his  proposal. 

The  crisis  in  Parliament  appears  to  have  been  passed  soon 
after  April  5.  On  that  date  Adams  wrote  that  even  the  mur- 
nuirs  against  large  establishments  had  nearly  ceased.'  lie 
was  therefore  nnu'li  surprised,  a  few  days  later,  when  Lord 
Castlereagh  reciuested  an  interview  to  inform  him  that  the 
British  Government  was  ready  to  meet  the  proposal  of  the 
L'nited  States  "so  far  as  to  avoid  everything  like  a  conten- 
tion between  the  two  parties  which  should  have  the  strongest 
force"  on  the  lakes,  anil  that  they  had  nt)  desire  to  have  any 
ships  in  commission  or  active  service  except  what  might  be 
needed  "to  convey  troops  occasionally."  It  appears  that 
Lord  Castlereagh  was  prepared  to  enter  into  an  agreement 
upon  the  subject,  but  .Kdams  did  not  feel  like  concluding  the 
arrangement  without  further  instructions.  l'"or  this  reason 
it  was  agreed  that  the  negotiations  be  transferred  to  Wash- 
ington, and  that  power  and  instructions  should  be  sent  to 
Mr.  Bagot,  the  liritish  minister  to  the  L'nited  States.  Adams 
wanted  all  the  effects  of  a  positive  arrangen»ent  to  begin  at 
once,  however.  In  fact,  his  letter  to  Momue  on  April  15th 
shows  that  he  understood  that  it  was  "agreed  that  no  new  or 
additional  force  should  be  conunenced  upon  the  lakes  on 
cither  side  for  the  present." '    But  no  notes  were  exchanged 

'  No    20  Dt'spatches. 

^  No.  2u  I)ipl()m:Uic  Correspoiuleiu-e.     (Dt-spatches.) 

^  No.  2u  iJip.  Cur. 


ii 


u- ', 


72 


Neutrality  of  the  American  Lakes. 


to  this  effect.  The  United  States  Government  would  prob- 
ably, at  this  time,  have  been  willing  to  let  the  force  remain 
unchanged  in  order  to  stop  the  danger  of  further  increase.' 
This  evil  was  the  first  one  to  be  avoided.  Monroe  referred 
to  its  "dangerous  tendency"  in  a  conversation  with  Mr. 
Bagot  on  May  2  and  in  a  letter  to  Adams  on  May  3;  and  on 
May  21,  before  he  had  heard  of  the  decision  of  the  British 
Government  to  meet  the  proposal  to  disarn),  in  another  letter 
to  Mr.  Adams  he  said  that  while  that  proposal  expressed  the 
views  of  the  President,  he  would,  nevertheless,  be  "satisfied 
to  prevent  the  augmentation  of  the  force,  leaving  it  on  both 
sides  in  the  present  state,  and  when  it  is  considered  that 
Great  Britain  has  the  ascendancy  on  Lake  Ontario,  which 
appears  more  immediately  on  Canada,  and  that  the  United 
States  have  it  on  Erie  and  Huron,  which  is  important  only 
in  relation  to  the  savages  within  our  limits,  it  is  not  perceived 
on  what  ground  it  can  be  refused." 

Late  events  on  the  lakes,  however,  soon  made  it  apparent 
that  more  efficient  measures  should  be  adopted.  On  June 
8,  General  Cass  sent  the  news  that  British  naval  officers  at 
Maiden  had  been  boarding  American  vessels,  which  passed 
there,  in  seach  of  deserters.  None  had  actually  been  taken, 
and  the  conduct  was  "presumed  not  to  have  the  sanction  of 
the  British  Government,""  but  it  was  none  the  less  a  violation 
of  the  rights  of  the  United  States,  and  Adams  was  asked  to 
call  the  matter  to  the  early  attention  of  the  British  Gov- 
ernment. 

-After  his  interview  with  Mr.  Adams  on  April  15,  Lord 
Castlereagh  was  prompt  in  notifying  Mr.  Bagot  of  his  power 

'8  Instriictiotis,  pp.  .(6  ami  6;,  .Mso  see  "America,"  \'ol.  141. 
(Hagot  tn  CastlL-reauli,  May  y.) 

'VI.  (iraliam  (actiiijj;  under  Secretary  Monroe),  in  a  letter  to  Presi- 
dent Madison,  on  |une  25,  tlirew  the  mantle  of  charity  over  the  afTair 
by  sayinjj  that  "possibly  tiie  measure  was  adopted  more  with  a  view 
of  preventing  llieir  men  iVom  j;oing  on  boarii  United  Slates  vessels 
than  with  any  serious  iiUention  of  violating  rights  of  the  United 
Slates."     (Madison  Papers,  \'ol.  5S.) 


Agreement  of  i8iy. 


73 


to  act  in  the  matter  of  arranging  naval  forces,  as  well  as  the 
matter  of  fisheries.'  When  the  news  reached  America  of  the 
apparently  sudden  change  in  the  attitude  of  the  British  Gov- 
ernment there  was  some  speculation  as  to  the  probable  cause. 
Was  the  prosperity  of  England  on  the  decline?  Or  was  Eng- 
land acting  from  purely  humanitarian  motives?  Or  did  she 
fear  some  new  trouble?  Dallas  wrote  President  Madison,  on 
June  26,  that  "Lord  Castlercagh's  overtures  to  arrange  the 
question  of  armament  on  the  lakes  are  probably  suggested 
by  the  apprehension  of  a  new  commotion  in  Europe."^ 

By  the  early  part  of  July  Mr.  Bagot  had  given  Secretary 
Monroe  information  of  the  new  powers  which  had  been 
given  him,  but  he  did  not  enter  into  a  full  discussion.  Mon- 
roe wrote  Adams  on  July  8  that  he  had  not  yet  learned  the 
"nature  and  extent"  of  his  power.'  ]  le  had  written  to  Presi- 
dent Madison  the  day  before  stating  that  Bagot  had  in- 
formed him  that  he  would  enter  upon  the  subject  of  naval 
forces  after  the  question  of  fisheries  had  been  arranged.  In 
his  own  mind  the  adjustment  of  the  lake  armaments  was 
first.  Thinking  some  new  ideas  on  the  subject  might  have 
been  suggested  to  the  President's  mind  since  he  had  ap- 
proved the  instructions  sent  to  Adams,  Monroe  asked  him 
for  his  sentiments,  as  well  as  directions  in  the  matter.''  Mr. 
Madison  responded  promptly  on  July  11.  lie  did  not  see 
why  Mr.  Bagot  should  desire  to  suspend  an  arrangement  of 
naval  forces  until  the  subject  of  fisheries  had  been  disposed 
of.°  He  saw  no  connection  between  the  two,  and  he  said  that 
"an  immediate  attention  to  the  former  is  the  more  necessary, 
as  it  is  said  an  enlargement  of  the  British  forces,  particularly 
on  Erie,  is  actually  going  on."  He  said  it  would  be  far  bet- 
ter to  suspend  this  enlargement  till  negotiations  concerning 
it  were  concluded.  To  him  it  now  seemed  expedient  to  stip- 
ulate: 


'  "America,"  Vol.  140.     (Casllcreagli  to  Bagot,  April  23.) 

■'Madison  Papers,  Vol.  58,  No.  7.). 

•'  S  Iiistruclions,  p.  85, 

'  Moiirot'  I'apors,  Vol.  5,  July  7,  No.  643. 

'Monroe  I'apers,  Vol.  15,  No.  1969. 


1 

1 
I 

1 

> 

1  : 

^^HH  ;< 

■  WRll'    * 

t 

■  llf!  ••   t 

74 


Neulralily  of  Ihc  American   Lakes. 


"(i)  That  no  increase  of  cxistin}^  armaments  should  take 
place. 

"(2)  That  existing-  armaments  be  laid  up. 

"(3)  That  revemie  cutters,  if  allowed  at  all,  be  reduced  to 
the  minimum  of  size  and  force." 

On  the  latter  pcjint  he  thought  there  might  be  advantage 
in  communicating  with  (lovernor  Cass,  or  with  others  who 
were  acquainted  with  it.  He  asked,  "What  is  the  practice 
with  respect  to  jurisdiction  on  the  lakes?  Is  it  conunon  to 
both  parties  over  the  whole,  or  exclusive  to  each  on  its  own 
side  of  the  dividing  line?"  1  le  suggested  that  the  regulation 
of  revemie  cutters  might  be  influenced  by  the  question  of 
jurisdiction. 

Monroe,  probably  feeling  that  there  was  no  chance  of  mak- 
ing any  inunediate  arrangement  with  Mr.  lUigot,  had  gone 
down  to  Loudoun  county,  V'a.,  for  a  few  days,  to  rest  frcnn 
the  cares  of  public  toil.  It  does  not  appear  that  he  ever  com- 
municated with  General  Cass  in  regard  to  the  questi(.)n  of 
revenue  cutters.  During  the  absence  of  Mr.  Monroe  in  the 
country  it  seems  that  Mr.  Bagot  had  given  the  matter  of 
naval  forces  some  consideration,  and  was  more  ready  to 
discuss  the  subject.  He  wrote  a  letter  to  Mr.  Monroe,  and 
Mr.  (jraham  sent  it  to  the  President  on  July  13  to  get  his 
opinion  before  Mr.  Monroe  should  give  his  reply  upon  his 
return.'  The  substance  of  this  letter  is  ncjt  found  at  the 
Department  of  State,  but  the  following  letter  from  Madison 
to  Monroe,  on  July  Ji,  will  indicate  that  there  had  been  fur- 
ther discussion  of  the  subject: 

"I  have  received  yours  of  the  21  [mistaken  date].  I 
hope  Mr.  Bagot,  if  willing  to  arrange  in  any  mode  a  reci- 
procity on  the  lakes,  will  innnediately  issue  instructions  to 
discontinue  augmentations,  or  preparations  of  force  on  the 
liritish  side.  The  state  of  the  size  on  our  side  will  corre- 
spond without  instructions,  but  a  comnniiiicalion  to  the 
proper  ofticers  of  what  may  be  the  British  intentions  will  be 


J 


'Madison  Papers,  Vol.  58,  No.  <yi. 


Agnetnc7il  of  i8ry. 


75 


proper.  There  can  be  no  inconvenience  to  ^[r.  Bagot  in 
takinjj:  sucli  a  course.  The  measure  sufjpcstcd  may  be  Dro- 
visional  till  a  more  formal  arrangement  be  made;  or  con- 
verted into  a  permanent  arraiijj^ement  as  may  be  found  best."' 

After  Monroe's  return  from  Loudouu  county,  he  had  sev- 
eral conversations  with  Mr.  I'.agot  upon  the  subject  of  the 
nava)  armaments  upon  the  lakes,  and  he  "thought  at  one  time 
that  they  would  agree;"  but  when  Monroe  put  his  ideas  in 
writing,  and  sent  the  papers  to  Mr.  Bagot  informally,  the  lat- 
ter would  not  subscribe  his  name  to  them.'  As  a  reason,  he 
intimated  that  tiiere  was  some  difficulty  as  to  his  powers. 
Monroe,  seeing  that  there  was  "little  probability  of  his  being 
able  to  do  anything  inunediately  with  Mr.  Bagot"  in  relation 
to  the  fisheries,  and  to  the  reduction  of  naval  forces,  decided 
to  leave  again  the  hot  miasmic  atmos])here  of  the  ca])ilal  and 
to  return  into  the  coimtry.  Under  the  circumstances,  it 
seemed  umiecessary  for  him  to  remain  in  Washington  to 
w-^it  for  r.agot's  reply.  The  reply  came  soon  after  the  de- 
])arture  of  Mr.  Monroe.  Mr.  ( irah.-im  sent  a  copy  of  it  to  the 
I'resident  on  July  jy,  and  said;  "'i'his  was  forwarded  to  Mr. 
Monroe,  and  by  his  directiotis  I  Jiow  send  it  to  you.  His 
answer  will  be  sent  here  by  the  next  mail  and  is  to  be  for- 
warded to  you  before  it  is  sent  to  .Mr.  Uagot."  This  reply 
was,  doubtless,  Mr.  Bagot 's  letter  of  Jidy  26,  which  formally 
opened  the  negotiations  at  W.'ishington  by  stating  that  in 
relation  to  the  naval  armaments  on  the  lakes  the  Prince  Re- 
gent, "in  the  spirit  of  the  most  entire  confiilence,"  was  ready 
to  adopt  "any  reasonable  system"  which  would  contribute 
to  ec(jnoniy,  to  ptacefulness,  and  to  the  removal  of  jealousy. 
The  "answer"  which  Monroe  was  to  send  "by  the  next  mail" 
was,  therefore,  his  letter  of  August  2,  in  which  he  submitted 
the  "precipe  project"  which  was  desired.  The  details  of  the 
proposal  were  given  as  follows: 

"I  have  the  honor  now  to  state  that  the  President  is  will- 
ing, in  the  spirit  of  the  i)eace  which  so  happily  exists  be- 

'  .Monroe  Papers,  Vol.  15,  No.  1973. 

'Madison  Papers,  Vol.  5.S,  No.  107,  July  29.    (draliam  to  Madison.) 


)  . 


76 


Neutrality  of  the  American  Lakes. 


I 


twecn  the  two  nations  and  nntil  the  proposed  arrangement 
shall  1)0  cancelled  in  the  manner  hereinafter  suggested,  to 
confine  the  naval  force  to  be  maintained  on  the  lakes  on 
each  sides  to  the  following  vessels,  that  is:  On  Lake  On- 
tario to  one  vessel  not  exceeding  loo  tons  burthen  and  one 
l8  pound  cannon,  and  on  the  upper  lakes  to  two  vessels  of 
like  burthen  and  force,  and  on  the  waters  of  Lake  Chatnplain 
to  one  vessel  not  exceeding  the  like  burthen  and  force;  and 
that  all  other  armed  vessels  on  those  lakes  shall  be  forthwith 
dismantled,  and  likewise  that  neither  party  shall  build  or  arm 
any  other  vessel  on  the  shores  of  those  lakes. 

"That  the  naval  force  thus  rctaincfl  by  each  party  on  the 
lakes  shall  he  restricted  in  its  duty  to  the  protection  of  its 
revenue  laws,  the  transportation  of  troops  and  goods,  and  to 
su  .)ther  services  as  will  in  no  respect  interfere  with  the 
a  .lied  vessels  of  the  other  party. 

"That  should  either  of  the  parties  be  of  opinion  hereafter 
that  this  arrangement  did  not  accciuiplish  the  object  in- 
tended by  it,  and  be  desirous  of  annulling  it,  and  give  notice 
thereof,  it  shall  be  void  and  of  nn  effect  after  the  expiration 
of months  from  the  date  of  such  notice.'" 

Monroe  stated  that  immediate  effect  might  be  given  to 
this  project  by  convention  or  by  interchange  of  notes,  or  that 
if  Bagot  had  to  wait  for  the  sanction  of  his  government,  a 
provisional  reciprocal  arrangement  might  be  made.  lie  al.so 
stated  that,  in  case  Mr.  Bagot's  powers  were  not  adecpiate  to 
do  more,  he  would  be  willing  to  concur  in  the  suspension  of 
further  augmentation  or  equipment  of  vessels  for  the  lakes 
named. 

Mr.  Bagot  offered  no  objection  to  any  of  the  details  of  the 
proposition,  but  he  antiounced  his  lack  of  authority  to  con- 
clude definitely  an  agreement  as  to  details  without  first  sub- 
nutting  it  to  his  government  for  its  consideration  of  "points 
connected  with  the  internal  administration"  of  the  provinces, 


'  Ann.ils  of  Congress.  15-1,  Vol.  2,  p.   1943.  App»'ndi.\.     See  also 
AtiuTicati  .State  Papers,  I'oreii^n  Relations,  Vol.  4,  p.  202. 


Agree menl  of  iSij. 


77 


I 


and  as  to  tlic  naval  assistance  necessary  for  the  ordinary 
business  of  a  peace  establislinicnt.  In  tlie  meantime,  he  was 
willing  to  give  effect  to  any  arrangement,  to  wliicli  they 
might  agree,  for  the  mutual  suspension  of  construction, 
equipment,  and  exertion  on  the  lakes. 

Monroe  returned  from  the  country  on  August  lo,  and  he 
now  proposed  (August  \2},  in  order  that  the  arrangement 
should  be  ecpial,  to  adopt  the  detailed  project  of  August  2,  as 
a  "provisional  arrangement."  But  Bagot  did  not  feel  "au- 
thorized to  make,  even  provisionally,  any  precise  agreement 
as  to  the  e.xact  manner"  of  limiting  the  forces  on  the  lakes. 
His  power  appeared  to  be  limited,  as  Monroe  wrote  to 
Adams  (.\ugust  13),  "to  a  right  to  agree  to  suspend  the  fur- 
ther augmentation  of  the  naval  force  on  those  waters,  with- 
out fixing  its  maximum  by  any  rational  standard  to  the 
number  of  vessels  which  might  be  necessary." 

Mr.  Monroe  stated  to  him.  in  his  note  of  August  12,  that 
if  his  power  did  not  extend  farther  than  this,  the  United 
States  Government  would,  upon  receiving  a  statement  of 
the  r.ritish  force  on  the  lakes,  and  an  assurance  that  it 
would  not  be  further  augmented,  confine  the  United  States 
force  to  the  same  limits.  Mr.  Bagot  agreed  the  next  day  to 
furnish  the  statement  of  the  force  as  soon  as  he  could  get 
information  upon  the  subject,  and  closed  his  note  by  saying: 
"I  can  in  the  meantime  give  you  tlic  assurance  that  all  fur- 
ther augmentation  of  it  will  be  immediately  suspended." 

Mr.  Bagot  stated  in  his  note  of  August  6,  that  "the  gen- 
eral coincidence  of  sentiment"  between  the  two  governments 
in  regard  to  coming  to  sonu;  agreement  upon  the  subject 
gave  reason  to  hope  that  the  several  parts  of  the  arrange- 
ment would  be  easily  adjusted.  But  he  was  not  satisfied  at 
that  time  to  make  such  a  large  reduction  as  was  proposed  by 
the  note  of  Mr.  Monroe  containing  the  views  of  the  Presi- 
dent. Concerning  this  note,  Mr.  Bagot,  on  August  12,  wrote 
to  Lord  Castlereagh  as  follows: 

"On  examining  the  draft  which  I  received  from  him,  I 
found,  that  besides  a  proposal  for  a  much  larger  reduction 


78 


A^'utralily  of  the  Aittcrican   Lakrs. 


tU'.-i 


of  tlio  N'aval  I'nrcc  than  sooniod  coniiiatibU-  with  tlio  ordinary 
business  uf  a  I'cai-c  I'.stahlislinicnl.  it  cotitaiiicd  certain  re- 
strictions as  to  the  c!n])loynH'nt  of  the  N'essels  to  he  re- 
tained, which  appeared  to  ine  to  have  some  object  in  view 
beyond  the  principal  .  .  .  one  professed  by  the  American 
( iovernment.  I,  therefore,  in  returninc,''  the  draft  to  Mr. 
Ab)nroe,  carefully  avoided  enterint,^  into  any  discussicjn 
whatever  of  the  terms.  ,  .  .  It  is  distinctly  understood  be- 
tween .Mr.  Monroe  and  myself,  that  if,  upon  the  receipt  of 
my  Letter  by  the  Connnander  of  His  .Majesty's  Naval 
I'orccs,  any  of  the  armed  vessels  now  buildinj,^,  shall  be  in 
that  state  of  ])rof4ress  in  which  they  cannot  be  laid  up  or  dis- 
mantled without  injury  to  the  materials  it  shall  be  permitted 
to  completi'  them  so  far  as  is  necessarv  for  their  preserva- 
tion.'" 

W'hcn  Lord  Castlcreai^h  received  the  aliove  letter  the 
members  of  the  cabinet  were  scattered,  and  the  consideration 
of  the  matter  was  laid  over  till  they  could  meet.' 

Since  the  specific  proposition  had  to  be  referred  to  Lord 
Castlereai;h,  .Mr.  Monroe  thouj^ht  it  ])robal)le  that  the  coii- 
clusif)n  of  the  nep)tiations  wotild  revert  to  .Mr.  Adams.  In 
his  letter  of  Auj^ust  13  to  Adams'  he  spoke  t)f  the  obvious 
advantaf^e  of  this,  as  he  (Adams)  was  "already  authorized  to 
treat  on  other  important  subjects."  Adams  was  not  inclined 
to  see  any  advanta.u'c  in  it.  It  came  in  the  nature  of  another 
surprise  to  him.  When  he  received  Mr.  Monroe's  letter,  he 
ai)pears  to  have  been  inclined  to  (piestion  the  sincerity  of  the 
existing'  cabinet,  whose  policy  appeared  to  him  to  be  one  of 
subterfup;es,  of  refusals  to  negotiate,  "or  of  expedients  hav- 
itig  all  the  features  of  refusal  except  its  candor.'"  lie  was 
tireil  of  delays  and  sur])rises  and  uncertainties  ujion  this  sub- 
ject, ft  was  a  jugglery  of  "now  you  see  it,  and  now  you 
don't,"  a!id  he  feared  that  the  Americans  were  the  crcduhjus 


'  ".America,"  \'ol.  142,  Letter  No.  24. 

'' "Anieriia,"  Vol.  140.  -'S  Instructions,  p.  94. 

*2i  Dip.  Cor.,  No.  56. 


Agreement  of  iSrj 


79 


auditors  who  had  been  made  fools  in  the  f^^anic.     When  on 
January  2^  he  made  liis  proposal  "for  disanniii};.  or  at  least 
for  limjlin;;  armaments  upon  the  lakes,"  he  was  convinced 
from  the  manner  in  which  it  was  received  that  it  would  not 
be  acccptcKl.    But  in  April  "he  was  assured  by  Lord  Castle- 
reagh  that  the  government  was  disposed  fully  ti)  meet  the 
pro} M^sition.  and  that  Mr.  Iiagot  should  inmicdiately  he  au- 
thorized 10  enter  into  formal  stipulation  for  the  |>untosc. 
And  as.  it  nou  appearefl  probable  that  T.agot's  power  would 
terminate  in  a  reference  back  to  his  own  ji^^overnment,  .\<lams 
was  led  to  *u»ptcion  that  I'.nt^land  was  ^.iIuply  anni^iu;.,^  the 
United    Sta:e»,  while    i)reparin^    her    defenses.      He  wrote 
Monroe.  Seixember  2J,  that  "while  Wv.  \\i\\::,oi  was  net'oti- 
ating  and  rcceivtng  your  specific  proposition  to  be  trans- 
mitted here.  52.000  tons  of  ord  lance  stores  have  been  dis- 
patched to  <"--i'^P'!a  with  the  avi  wed  purpose  of  armin;,'  their 
new  con*tr:       ;  i^rts,  and  new  built  shijjs  upon  the  lakes." 
Monr<x-a^ecd  with  Adams  (November  14)  that  it  ajjpeared 
that  the  British  policy  was  to  anuise,'  and  was  aware  of  the 
t;u])p]y  of  cannon  and  munition  of  war  to  Canada,  but  his 
recent  communication  with  .Mr.  I'.a.yot  gave  him  mure  con- 
fidence in  the  sincerity  of  the  llritish  Clovernment.     I>y  the 
close  of  the  year  there  was  more  evidence  to  give  assurance 
of  good  intentiona  and  growing  promptness.     The  effect  of 
this  nen*  disposition  in  preventing  actual  conllict  on  the  bor- 
der may  here  be  noticed. 

On  August  29,  Mr.  .\dams  had  called  Castlereagh's  atten- 
tion to  the  improper  conduct  of  the  conmiander  of  the  Llritish 
armed  vessel  TecumseU,  in  permitting  men  from  his  vessel 
to  board  serveral  L'nited  Stales  vessels  upon  Lake  Erie  in  an 
improper  manner.'  Castlereagh,  fully  "persua<led  that 
measures  no  less  reciprocal"  would  be  taken  by  the  United 
States,  at  once  bsued  positive  instructions  to  the  civil,  mili- 
tary and  navaf  authorities  in  North  America  to  discourage 
by  every  means  such  proceedings  in  the  future,  and  to  pur- 


'  No.  S  lustnKti 


uns. 


■No.  21  Dip.  Cor.,Si;pl.  iS. 


80 


Xrii'>a/ily  of  the  Aiiiti  iiaii   Laki's. 


sue  a  loinluct  shovviuj;  an  ainioahlc  disposition.  Iwcn  be- 
fore Adams  had  presented  this  coniiihiint  to  Lord  Castle- 
reaj;h.  other  simihir  acts  had  been  coininitted.  and  it  was 
inferred  that  they  were  "in  compliance  with  a  system" 
which  the  I'.ritish  coirn'anders  in  Canada  thought  it  their 
duty  to  pursue. 

On  July  26,  General  Cass  wrote  to  Monroe  (General  Mc- 
Comb  also  wrote  to  the  Secretary  of  War)  complaining  of  the 
improper  co',uhict  of  a  Piritish  officer  of  the  I'.ritish  armed 
vc?scl  Hu'OH  in  boarding  an  American  vessel,  the  brij? 
Union,  and  searchinj^  her  on  the  strait  ner.r  Maiden.  It 
had  also  been  represented  to  Cass  that  the  act  was  sujiported 
by  officers  at  Maiden,  who  placed  cannon  in  position  to  bear 
on  tl'.e  American  vessel.'  .Secretary  Mt)nroe  thought  (as 
Adams  was  also  convinced  in  the  case  of  the  Tccnmsch)  that 
the  British  officers  had  mistaken  the  policy  of  their  govt.n- 
nient.  This  was  doubtless  true.  On  Auj;ust  14  he  called 
the  attei.iion  of  Mr.  I'aj^ot  to  this  act  of  irritation  and  injus- 
tice, with  full  contitlence  that  he  wnn.M  i.:ke  measures  to  pre- 
vent a  similar  occurrence.'  The  latter  was  justly  aware  of  the 
dangerous  tendency  of  these  acts,  and  proceeded  at  once  to 
have  the  Governor  General  of  Ca.iada  and  the  cnief  of  the 
naval  forces  on  the  lakes  direct  incjuiry  into  the  matter.' 

( )n  November  18  he  informed  Secretary  Monroe  that  no 
cannon  had  been  placed  in  position  at  Fort  Maiden,  as  was 


'  N<i.  iS  Iiislriictioiis,  ]>.  99. 

'a  Notes  Worn  S'ute  l.)cpt.,  p.  164. 

'Monroi.',  now  app.ireiitly  lor  the  first  time,  informed  Cass  of  the 
President's  discussions  witli  lia^ot,  resiiliin};-  in  a  "provisional 
arrangeinent,  for  the  i)r(sent  to  siisi>eiul  the  further  au};inentalion  of 
tile  naval  force  of  (ireat  Brit.iin  in  those  waters,  and  to  confine  our 
force  within  the  same  limit."  He  also  tokl  Cass  that  Basj^ot  e.\pected 
an  enlargement  of  iiis  power.  He  sent  him  in  confuieiue  1  copy  of 
the  corre.ipoiRleiice  which  had  passed.  He  (htl  tliis  because  it  would 
be  satisfactory  and  useful  for  him  to  know  it.  Under  a  similar 
injiuiLtion  of  "cciiifidence,"  he  was  authorized  to  conmiunicate 
correspondence  to  Major  General  McC<jmb.  He  was  also  advised 
to  consult  with  the  Governor  of  Canada  liitnself  after  this.  (Aug  15.) 
(16  Domestic  Letters,  p.  ,^22.) 


p^' 


Agreement  of  iS/y. 


81 


represented,  but  that  it  appeared  from  the  reports  sent  him 
that  the  officer  coiiinianthng  on  Lake  Erie  hafi  "miscon- 
ceived the  nature  (jf  his  instructions"  and  considered  that  all 
vessels  passinp^  under  l'"ort  Maiden  should  he  visited.'  The 
coniniaiider-in-chief  on  the  lakes  revoked  such  orders  at 
once,  and  every  means  was  taken  to  prevent  a  similar  occur- 
rence. The  orders  sent  by  the  influence  of  Lord  Castlereagh 
had  also  reached  Canrida  by  this  time,  and  the  consequent  re- 
straint on  the  conduct  of  the  oflicers  on  the  lakes  would  tend 
to  secure  peace  and  tranquillity  in  that  quarter.  All  these 
measures  doubtless  produced  the  salutary  effect  intended  by 
them.' 

Mr.  .Madison  was  highly  pleased  with  the  promptness 
shown  by  -Mr.  l»aj;ot,  and  at  the  prompt  measures  taken  at 
his  instance  by  the  commanders  in  Canada  and  on  the  lakes. 
Mr.  I'apfot  was  assured  November  29  that  corresponding 
orders  had  been  given  and  would  be  repeated  and  enforced 
by  the  United  States  Government. 

In  the  meantime  (Novcml)er  4)  Mr.  Hagot  had  furnished 
the  Secretary  of  State  with  "an  account  of  the  actual  state  of 
His  Majesiy's  naval  force  upon  the  lakes,*"  and  stated  that 

'  No.  9  Ni>tciJ  to  State  Dcpt. 
'No.  2  Not's  fri;T  Stati-  Dept. 

'Tile  15ritisl   report  had  lutn  prep.ired  September  i,  1H16.    It  gave 
the  followinj;  v  atetnent  of  tl.e  British  force  on  the  lakes  : 
"On  I.akk  O.ntakio  : 
St.  Laicrcticc,  ran  carry  <iu  };ims,  laid  ii|.  in  ordinary. 
Psy  he,  can  carry  50  kuiis,  laid  up  in  ordinary. 
Pi hurss  Charlotte,  ran  carry  4(   >;iiiis,  laid  np  in  ordinary. 
Niigara,  ( an  carry  211  ki">^.  condemned  as  uiiht  for  service. 
Ontwt'/t,  can  carry  14  yi'iis,  hauled  up  in  the  mud,  condemned 

li '.ewise. 
Piit.cr  A'eQftit,  i:an  carry  60  guns,  in  commission,  but  une(iuip- 

pe  1.  .  .  . 
AfoN.rral.  in  commission,  carryiiij;  h   Runs  ;  used    merely  as  a 

transport. 
Stat;  carrying  .\  >;ui;<    .      .  unfit  for  actual  service. 
Nrtfty,  schooner,  nt)  ^uns  ;  attached  tor  most  part  to  the  sur- 
veyors. .  .  . 
Some  row  boats,  capable  of  carryiiijj;  long  guns  ;    two  74-gun 
ships  on  the  stocks,  and  one  transport  of  400  tons. 


'Mf 


45 


ii||; 


i;l 


^  Neutralily  of  Ihc  American   l.ahis. 

furthcraugiiii'iitation  was  suspended  until  the  British  Govern- 
ment reported  upon  the  proposal  of  August  2.  Mr.  Monroe 
at  once  (Xovenibct  7)  furnislu-d  the  former  with  the  state- 
ment of  the  United  States  naval  force  in  the  same  region,' 
and  had  orders  given  "to  prevent  any  augmentation  of  it  bc- 

On  Lakk  Vmw.  : 

Teciimseh  aiui  Nexvark,  carrying  4  guns  eacli. 

Huron  ami  Sauk,  carrying  i  jjmi  eacli. 

Principally  for  carr>inK  sturcs  from  jilacc  to  place. 
On  Lake  Hlkon  : 

Confidence  ami  Surprise,  schooriers,  which  may  carry  one  gun, 
and  are  used  for  purposes  of  transport  only. 

On  Laick  CitAMi'i.AiN  : 

12  gun-boats,  ten  of  which  are  laiii  up  in  ordinary,  and  the 
other  two  (one  of  wiiich  mounts  4  t^uns,  and  the  other  3  gnus) 
used  as  guard  boats.  HesitKs  the  ai)ove,  there  are  some  small 
row  boats,  which  are  laid  up  as  unfit  for  service. 

Keel,  stem,  and  stern-post  of  a  frigate  laid  ilown  at  the  Isle  aux 
Noix." 
'  The  re[)ort  which  Mr.  .Monroe  furnished   Mr.  i5agot  gave  the  fol- 
lowing vessels  :     ( "America, "  Vol.  ij2,  Nov.  9.) 
On  I.aki;  Ontakki  : 

Hrig/cwf.?  (i.S  guns).     Retained  for  occasional  service. 

Schooner /.rt</v  of  the  Lake  (i  gun).  Kmployed  in  aid  of  the 
revenue  l.iws. 

Ship  A'fTc  Orleans  (74  guns).    On  the  stocks,  l)uilding suspended. 

Ship  Chippe'io  (74  guns).     On  the  stocks,  hiiiUling  suspended. 

Shijis  Siiprriity  (44  guns),  Mohaivk  (32  guns),  General  Pike  (24 
guns),  Madison  {x'A  guns);  anil  llu:  \,x\'gs  Jrjjerson  (18  guns), 
Sylph  (16  guns),  and  Oneida  (i.S  guns).     Dismanlled. 

.Schooner  Raven.     Neceiving  vessel. 

15  barges  (each,  i  gun).     Laid  up  for  preservation. 

On  Lakk  !■  kik  : 
Schooners  J'orcupinr  .ind    Ghent  (each,  i   gun).     I''niployed  in 

transporting  stores. 
Ship  Detroit  (t8  guns),  and  brigs  Lawrence  (20  gims),  and  Queen 

Charlotte  (14  guns).     Sunk  at  Krie. 
Brig  Nia^i^ara  (i.S  guns).     Dismantled  at  Lrie. 

On  Lakk  Chamim.ain  : 
Ships  Confiance  (32  guns),  and  Saratoga  (22  guns) ;  brigs  Eagle 
(12  guns),  and  Sinnet  ( 16  guns) ;  the  schooner  Ticonde,  jga  (14 
guns) ;  and  6  galleys  (each,  i  gun).     All  laid  up  at  While  Hall. 


if.:- 1 


A_s;recmc7it  of  iSiy . 


83 


vond  tlic  limit  i>f  tlu'  llritish  naval  force  on  those  waters." 
Air.  r.af,a)t  iioticLMJ  that  no  force  for  the  up[)er  lakes  was 
given  ill  the  -t.itt  nieiit  sent  him,  hut  was  informed  that  it  had 
been  inehulcd  in  the  force  mentioned  for  Lake  V.x'w.  It  ap- 
pears tliat  there  was  no  further  eorrcspcjndence  between 
1  lagol  and  Moin-oe  concerning  the  matter. 

The  reciprocal  and  delinile  mliiction  of  the  naval  force  on 
the  lakes  did  not  (jccur  uilil  alter  Monroe  had  become  I'resi- 
(UiU  the  next  year.  The  I'rince  Kegcnt  having,  in  the 
n:  •antiine,  agreed  to  the  proposition  of  August  2,  i8i6, 
L  astlereagh  so  informed  Mr.  l'.agot  on  January  31,  1817.  Mr. 
I'agot  notified  Mr.  Rush  (who  wa/  acting  as  Secrctarv  of 
State  luuil  Mr.  .\dams  could  arrive  f  .-m  London),  and  on  the 
jSlh  and  jyth  of  April,  18 17,  a  formal  agreement  was  eiviered 
nilo  by  exchange  of  notes.  It  was  pr.ictically  the  same  as  the 
jiroposed  project  of  August  2,  and  could  be  annulled  by 
cither  party's  giving  si.\  months'  notice.  The  I'ritish  Gov- 
erniucnt  had  already  issueil  orders  to  the  officers  on  the 
lakes,  directing  that  the  limited  naval  force  should  be  re- 
stricted to  such  services  as  would  "in  no  respect  interfere 
with  the  proper  duties  of  the  armed  vessels  of  the  other 
party."  I'.y  the  recjuest  of  Mr.  Rush  (April  30),  orders  to  the 
same  effect  were  issued  on  ALiy  2  by  Mr.  Crowninshield, 
Secretary  of  the  Navy,  to  the  American  commanding  naval 
officers  at  Erie,  Pa.,  Saekett's  Harbor,  N.  Y.,  and  Whitehall, 
N,  Y.  By  these  orders  the  schooner  I.ady  of  the  Lake  was 
assigned  to  Lake  Ontario,  the  schooners  I'orciipiiic  and  Ghent 
to  the  upper  lakes,  and  the  galley  /lllen  to  Lake  Chamjjlain. 

The  agreement  between  Rush  and  Bagot  became  effective 
at  once  upon  the  exchange  of  notes.  There  is  no  evidence 
that  Great  Uritain  gave  to  it  the  formalities  of  a  treaty,  and 
it  was  not  till  April  6.  1818,  that  1 'resident  .Monroe  formally 
notified  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  of  the  arrangement, 
and  submitted  to  its  consideration  whether  this  was  "such  an 
arrangement  as  the  Executive  is  cotiipetent  to  enter  into  by 
the  i)owers  vested  in  it  by  the  Constitution,  or  is  such  a  one 
as  re(|uires  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  and,  in  the 


84 


Neutrality  of  the  Ameriean  Lakes. 


latter  case,  for  their  advice  aiul  consent,  should  it  be  ap- 
proved." The  a])proval  and  consent  of  the  Senate  was 
given  on  April  lO,  with  no  dissentinj^;  vote,  and  it  was  rec- 
omnunded  that  the  arran^enu  tit  be  carried  into  effect  by  the 
President,  'i'he  .\j.^recnient  was  proclaimed  by  President 
Monroe  on  April  28,  and  appears  in  the  National  intelli- 
gencer of  April  30,  as  follows : 


r>v  Till-:  PiuiSiDENT  oi-  TiiK  I'mti:i)  Statks  of  Amkrica. 

A    PK()CI.AM.\'riON. 

Whereas,  an  arranf^enicnt  was  entered  into  at  the  city  of 
Washin^'ton,  in  the  niontli  of  April,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord 
one  thousand  cijjht  hundred  and  sevenUen,  between  Richard 
Rush,  hLscp,  at  that  time  actin}^  as  Secretary  for  the  l)ei)art- 
ment  of  State  of  the  United  States,  for  and  in  behalf  of  the 
Government  of  the  United  States,  and  the  Right  flonorablc 
Charles  Bagot,  His  P)ritannic  Majesty's  envoy  extraordinary 
and  mim'ster  plenipotentiary,  for  and  in  behalf  of  llis  Bri- 
tamiic  Majesty,  which  arrangement  is  in  the  words  following, 
to  wit : 

"The  naval  force  to  be  maintained  ujnm  the  American 
lakes  by  His  Majesty  and  the  Ciovernment  of  the  United 
States  shall  henceforth  be  confined  to  the  following  vessels 
on  each  side,  that  is — 

"On  Lake  Ontario,  to  one  vessel,  not  exceeding  one  hun- 
dred tons  burden,  and  armed  with  one  eighteen-pound  can- 
non. 

"On  the  upper  lakes,  to  two  vessels,  not  exceeding  like 
burden  each,  and  armed  with  like  force. 

"On  the  waters  of  Lake  Champlain,  to  one  vessel  not  ex- 
ceeding like  burden,  and  armed  witli  like  force. 

"All  other  armed  vessels  on  those  lakes  shall  be  forthwith 
dismantled  and  no  other  vessel  of  war  shall  be  there  built  or 
armed. 

"If  either  party  should  be  hereafter  desirous  of  annulling 
this  stipulation,  and  should  give  notice  to  that  effect  to  the 


Agreement  of  rSij. 


86 


other  party,  it  shall  cease  to  be  bindinp^  after  the  expiration 
of  six  months  from  the  date  of  such  notice. 

"The  naval  force  so  to  be  limited  shall  be  restricted  to  such 
service  as  will  in  no  respect  interfere  with  the  proper  duties 
of  the  armed  vessels  of  the  other  party." 

And  whereas  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  have  ap- 
proved of  the  said  arranj^ement  and  reconnnonded  that  it 
should  be  carried  into  effect,  the  same  haviti^"  also  received 
the  sanction  of  His  Royal  lliphness,  the  Prince  Kefjent,  act- 
ing in  the  name  and  on  the  behalf  of  His  Britannic  Majesty: 

Now,  therefore,  I,  James  Monroe,  President  of  the  United 
States,  do,  by  this  my  proclamatit)n,  make  known  and  de- 
clare that  the  arranj^^ement  aforesaid,  and  every  stii)ulation 
thereof,  has  been  duly  entered  into,  concluded  and  con- 
firmed, and  is  of  full  force  and  effect. 

Given  under  my  hand,  at  the  city  of  Washinj^ton,  this 
twcnty-eif;htli  day  of  .Xiiril,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord,  one 
thousand  eifrjit  Inmdrt-d  and  ei}.^hteen,  and  of  the  independ- 
ence of  the  United  States  the  forty-second. 

By  the  President:  J.ames   Monroe. 

John  Quinxy  Ad.\ms,  Secretary  of  State. 


Tt  was  the  itnpossibility  of  gettinj^  the  vessels  from  the 
lakes  to  the  sea  which  made  it  necessary  to  dismantle  them 
on  the  lakes.  This  work  appears  to  have  been  done 
promptly.'  Soon  only  d-^ciiantled  or  uncompleted  hulks  were 
left  as  a  reminder  of  the  rormer  warring  fleets.  In  fact,  the 
forces  on  each  side  decl;ned  to  "almost  complete  disajipear- 
ance."  By  1820,  feelings  of  danger  had  decreased  so  far  that 
the  House  of  Representatives  refused  to  consider  a  resolu- 
tion which  proiX)sed  a  western  depot  for  arms  "convenient 
to  those  points  which  arc  most  vulnerable  to  the  enemy.'"  In 
1822,  Mr.  Cooke,  in  the  House,  understanding  that  most  of 
the  vessels  on  the  lakes  were  sunk  and  "none  fit  for  service, 


'  Niles'  R<.'<^ist(.'r.  July  12,  1S17,  p.  320. 
■Annals  of  Ci)tiji;rL'Ss,  Jan.  4,  1821). 


>  ''4 


86 


NeutraHlv  of  the  .-l nun' am  /.akcs. 


thouj^'h  it  si'onicd  that  the  salaries  of  oflficers  and  men  did  not 
have  a  correspondinjj  decline,"  desired  an  incjniry  into  the 
subject.'  By  18J5  i)nl)lic  vessels  had  practically  disappeared. 
The  "era  of  j.;;oo(l  feeling;"  had  now  taken  the  place  of 
quarrels,  oppression  and  inisunderstandinp^.  and  peace  hepan 
to  exist  in  fact  as  well  as  in  theory.  The  prompt  orders  sent 
out  by  Castlereaph  to  the  naval  officers  on  the  lakes,  suspen- 
sion of  the  construction  of  vessels  in  that  (piartiT,  and,  finally, 
the  agreement  to  limit  the  force  of  each  side  on  the  lakes,  in- 
creased the  confidence  of  the  Americans  in  the  intentions  of 
their  British  kin.  It  was  a  fortunate  circinnstance  that  the 
heads  of  affairs  in  both  countries  were  not  men  with  stronj^^er 
prejudices  than  they  had  reason.  Castlcreatjh  was  probably 
in  advance  of  public  opinion  in  hjif^jland  in  making  favorable 
concessions  to  the  I'nited  .States  and  in  tryiujc^  to  soften  old 
animosities,  and  Bapot,  though  very  cautious,  was  inclined 
to  any  reasonable  measure  for  securing  friendly  relations. 
Both  were  held  in  hiffh  esteem  by  the  American  people.  Mr. 
P>ap[ot  was  liitjiily  honored  at  Washington,  lie  was  much 
liked  by  both  Madison  and  Monroe.  Tie  and  his  wife  took 
pleasure  in  spendinj^  several  days  of  the  antunm  at  Mont- 
pelier,  the  home  of  Mr.  and  .Mrs.  Madison.'  The  scene 
around  the  dinintr  table  in  that  old  Xirj^-inia  home  may  be 
typical  of  the  new  feelint;  which  was  be^itminp  to  i^rcnv  up. 
After  Mr.  Baj^ot's  return  to  Enjjland,  T.ord  C'astlerea^h 
showed  {Treat  satisfaction  at  the  friendly  feelinj:^  toward  him 
in  America,  and  said  it  was  desired  to  send  him  back  if  his 
health  would  alK.w.'  It  was  felt  to  be  a  time  for  the  adjust- 
ment of  questions  that  containetl  the  seed  of  future  misun- 
derstanding or  controversy,  and  for  awhile  the  Americans 
hoped  to  see  En^^land  yield  on  the  question  of  impressment, 
as  well  as  on  others  of  preat  moment  in  their  bearin^^s  upon 
harmonv  between  the  two  nations. 


'  Benton's  Ahrid)jemenl  of  Debates,  Vol.  7. 
-Madison  P.-ipers,  Vol.  fM,  No.  65,  Oct.  17. 
^23  IDcspatclies.     (Dip.  Cor.,  Rusli  to  Adams.) 


Agree7nevl  of  i8ij. 


87 


Old  causes  of  aniiviosity  wore  beinp^  removed  at  home. 
Monroe  made  a  visit  to  the  North  and  W^est,  which  helped 
to  remove  party  and  national  prejudices.  When  he  com- 
pleted his  journey  from  Ogdenshurfj  to  Detrftit  and  re- 
turned to  Washington  in  Septcnd)er  he  had  broad  views  of 
the  future  of  his  country.  In  his  niessaj::^e  of  December,  1817, 
he  said  thai  "our  own  jx'ople  are  the  barrier  on  the  lakes," 
and  preat  fortifications  are  lumccessary.  lie  hoped  that 
a  j;!st.  candid  and  friendly  policy  would  enable  us  to  preserve 
amicable  foreifjn  relations.  Society  appeared  to  be  weary  of 
strife.  The  druf^ers  of  future  (|uarrels  were  even  less  than 
was  thought  by  some  who  were  seeking  to  guard  the  repub- 
lic against  future  occasions  of  strife.  Mr.  Madison  thought 
that  if  the  question  of  impressment  was  settled,  a  remaining 
danger  to  a  permanent  harmony  would  lie  in  the  possession 
of  Canada.'  ( )ii  Xovend)er  28,  1818,  he  wrote  Monroe  that 
"the  only  reason  we  can  have  to  desire  Canada  ought  to 
weigh  as  much  with  Oeat  Britain  as  with  us.  In  her  hands 
it  nnist  ever  be  a  source  of  collision  which  she  ought  to  be 
e(|ually  anxious  to  remove."  lie  thought  that  even  if  Can- 
ada should  not  become  independent  in  time,  she  could  be  of 
no  value  to  ICngland  when  at  war  with  the  I'nited  States,  and 
would  be  of  equal  value  when  at  peace.  lUit  time  has  proven 
that  with  the  sairguards  which  the  spirit  of  the  fathers  pro- 
vided tlu-re  has  been  little  danger  from  that  source. 

.■\nglo-.\merican  relations  for  twenty  years  after  the 
Agreement  of  1817  were  far  more  cordial  than  they  had  ever 
been  before.  The  connnercial  convention  of  181 5  was  fav- 
orable to  the  United  States,  but  it  had  been  made  for  only 
four  years.    In  1818  it  was  extended  for  ten  years  more. 

It  was  feared  for  awhile  that  Astoria,  in  the  Oregon  coun- 
try, woidd  be  a  source  of  troid>le.  The  r.ritish  had  taken 
possession  of  this  post  during  the  war  of  181  j,  and  Mr.  Mon- 
roe announced  in  July,  1815,  that  the  United  States  intended 
to  reoccupy  it.    When  the  Ontario  sailed  from  New  York 


Madison's  Works,  Vol.  3,  p.  42, 


88 


Neutrality  of  the  Avieriian   Lakes. 


in  October,  1817,  on  a  voyage  to  the  Pacific  coast  with  this 
end  in  view,  Mr.  Bajjot  remonstrated,  hut  the  British  Gov- 
ernment did  not  stand  with  him,  and  on  October  6,  1818, 
Astoria  was  siirrenrlered.  Mr.  Piagot's  successor  found  no 
diplomatic  difficuUics  in  his  way,  and  Mr.  Rusli,  who  had 
replaced  Mr.  Adams  at  London,  was  treated  with  great  re- 
spect there. 

Of  course,  the  old  feeling  of  enmity  did  not  die  at  once. 
The  loyalists  who  went  from  the  I'nited  States  to  C.inada 
during  the  revolution,  and  received  lands  there,  had  an  -ver- 
sion to  Americans  which  was  not  diminished  by  the  invasion 
of  Canada  at  the  begiiniing  of  the  War  of  1812.  It  was  nat- 
ural for  the  Americans  to  return  this  hostile  feeling,  and 
some  of  the  insolvent  farmers  around  Lewiston  might  have 
been  glad  of  a  chance  for  another  invasion.'  The  only  faidt 
that  English  travelers  found  with  the  Americans,  however, 
was  that  they  were  inclined  to  "blow  their  horn  too  much." 
They  vaunted  over  what  the  British  called  "a  puny  war." 

In  June  and  July,  1822,  commissioners  settled  upon  the 
details  of  the  boundary  line  between  Canada  and  the  United 
States  from  the  St.  Lawrence  to  Lake  Superior,  thus  lessen- 
ing the  probabilities  of  misunderstanding  in  that  quarter. 
When  Canning  came  to  the  head  of  the  Foreign  Office  at  the 
death  of  Castlercagh  in  1822  he  was  nnich  viore  polite  than 
he  had  been  before  the  war  in  his  convc  sation  with  the 
American  ambassadors.  In  1823  he  drew  Great  Britain 
closer  to  the  United  States.  The  interests  of  the  two  coun- 
tries were  the  same  in  the  South  American  republics. 

In  1826,  relations  had  become  somewhat  tangled.  An 
E-!glish  order  in  council  kept  the  United  .States  from  trading 
with  the  West  India  ports.  At  the  same  time  the  British 
authorities  in  Canada  were  building  canals  to  compete  with 
the  United  States  in  securing  the  trade  of  the  lakes.  Some 
went  so  far  as  to  advise  that  in  order  to  deprive  the  Ameri- 


'  Howison  :    Sketches  of  Upper  Canuilii  and  llie  United   Stales. 
1820. 


A)^r cement  of  rSi-^. 


80 


cans  of  a  means  of  attack  upon  Canada,  and  in  order  to  make 
Great  Ilritain  mistress  of  tbe  lake  trade,  the  canals  should  be 
made  larpc  enough  for  steamers  suited  to  the  lakes  and 
"capable  of  beinf:^  turned  into  military  purposes  without  any 
expense.'"  This  proposal  to  secure  for  Clreat  I'ritain  the 
commercial  and  military  possession  of  the  lakes  was  not  the 
result  of  any  inuuediate  danf:;er  to  the  security  of  Canada,  nor 
to  her  interests  except  so  far  as  the  Erie  canal,  carryinj^  the 
waters  of  the  lake  toward  the  Atlantic,  had  opened  the  door 
between  New  "S'ork  city  and  the  commerce  of  the  rich  and 
developinjj  Northwest.  The  United  States  was  not  looking 
for  war. 

With  the  preat  increase  in  the  population  alonp  the  south- 
ern shores  of  the  lakes,  and  with  the  more  friendly  intermiii};- 
linp  of  the  two  jHoples  upon  its  waters,  the  relations  with 
(ireat  Britain  were  felt  to  be  entirely  safe.  In  1H26,  Fort 
Shelby,  at  Detroit,  was  demolished  and  the  jj^arrison  was  re- 
moved. By  1827,  when  Canninj^  died,  affairs  with  Enp;land 
were  even  more  satisfactory.  The  convention  of  18 18  was 
continued  indefinitely.  Tn  183:..  .vhen  the  United  States 
asked  the  West  India  trade  as  a  priviletre.  the  interdict  was 
removed  by  Great  I'ritain.  A  permanent  direct  trade  in 
American  bottoms  was  also  established  between  k'n.ti^land 
and  the  United  States. 

Statesmen  could  look  forward  to  continued  cordial  rela- 
tions and  a  gradual  gnnvth  of  the  sjiirit  of  reciprocity. 
Strained  relations  were  not  anticipated.  War  was  thought 
of  only  as  a  remote  possibility.  In  1830  it  was  argued  in  the 
House  of  Representatives  that  in  case  of  any  future  war  our 
main  defense  of  the  long  northern  frontier  must  be  our  naval 
force,  but  it  does  not  seem  that  any  war  was  expected.  When 
the  question  of  fortifications  was  being  considered  in  Con- 
gress in  1836,  Mr.  Cass,  the  Secretary  of  War,  thought  that 
under  existing  conditions,  and  when  we  were  not  hunting 
war,  it  seemed  "altogether  inexpedient  to  construct  expen- 


'  Roport  of  Canadian  .'\rchives.   i.Sgcv   Lieut.  Col.  By  to  Gen.  Mann, 

July  13,  1.S26. 


90 


Neulra/Hy  of  the  American   Lakes. 


sivc  fortifuatidPs"  aloiif^  the  lake  frontier,  which,  he  said, 
"requires  no  permanent  defenses."' 

What  the  lakes  needed  was  not  a  fleet  of  naval  vessels,  nor 
a  cordon  of  shore  defenses,  hnt  improved  harbors  for  the 
increasinj^  eommenial  fleet.  In  1816  the  first  steamer,  the 
Ontario,  was  built  on  Lake  f^ntario  ai  Sackett's  Harbor. 
She  bej,'an  to  ply  in  Aj)ril.  1S17.  In  1S18  the  first  steamer  on 
Lake  Erie,  the  U'dlk-in-thc-lVatcr'  was  launched  near 
Black  Rock,  below  Buffalo.  l*"roni  1818  to  1824  there  was 
a  very  small  number  of  vessels  employed  on  the  lakes.  From 
1824  to  iSj"  there  were  harbor  improvements  on  Lake  Hrie. 
which  produced  a  stimulus  on  cotnmerce.  A  new  stimulus 
was  piven  in  1825  by  the  completion  of  the  l'>ie  canal,' 
which  had  been  conmienced  at  Rome  on  July  4,  18 17.  There 
w;  s  a  j,'radual  increase  in  conuuerce  from  this  time  forward. 
Miiny  new  steamers  were  built."  Two  new  boats  were  built 
in  1824,  and  three  more  in  1825.  I'.y  18,^2  there  were  four 
others.  In  1833,  twelve  additional  ones  were  coni])lcted.  In 
a  few  years  more  there  were  fifty  steamers  ff«;m  liufTalo  to 
the  up])er  lakes.  Chicaj^o  was  first  reached  by  a  vessel  from 
the  lower  lakes  in  1834.  IJown  to  this  time  all  the  boats  that 
went  beyond  Cleveland  were  primarily  enj^ap^ed  in  carrving 
provisions  to  the  new  settlers.  After  1835  the  transportation 
of  western  products  to  the  East  became  more  |)r(imincnt. 
The  first  car^o  of  yrain  from  Lake  Michigan  reached  IhifTak) 
in  1836.  In  the  same  year  a  company  was  orj^^anized  in  Chi- 
cago to  facilitate  the  transportation  of  goods  from  St.  Louis 
to  that  city,  and  the  bulk  of  the  western  products  that  foimd 
their  way  east  by  the  lakes  constantly  increased.' 

'  II(jiise  kL'porls,  I'^xcc.  Doc.  N'u.  24.;,  24tli  Coiij;..  ist  Session. 

'An  account  of  its  eiurance  to  Detroit  is  found  in  an  "Account 
Book  "  of  the  Collector  of  Customs  .it  iliat  place  in  1.S18. 

'The  ()s\vej;o  canal  was  also  compieted  in  1828,  and  the  Welland 
canal  in  1S29. 

*  E.xec.  Docs.,  27-1,  \ol.  1,  p.  191  (i.S4i-2).  .Alscj,  see  Sci.ate  Doc. 
112,  Auji.  25,  1852.  Also,  see  J.  \V.  Hail's  "  Record  of  i.akc  Maiine." 
Detroit,  1878. 

MVis.  Hist.  Coll.,  Vol.  13,  1.S95,  article  by  O.  Lilihy  on  the  "Sig- 
nificance of  the  Lead  and  Shot  Trade  Also,  sec  Ivxec.  Doc.  68, 
26-1,  Feb.  1840.  Also,  Senate  Doc.  14.  ■,  26-1,  \'ol.  4,  p.  19.  Also, 
De  Bow's  Review  for  January,  1S46. 


V. 


THK  CANADIAN  RF.P.F.TJJON  AND  BOUNDARY 

QUESTIONS. 

Tanolkd  Rkf.ations  and  TnKKATK\Kn  Armamknts. 


Tlio  period  after  the  elose  nf  the  second  war  with  I'JiL,dand 
was  one  of  national  and  industrial  development.  The  Jirtny 
of  active  and  cnterprisinj;  people  continued  to  advance  west- 
ward, and  the  region  alon}^  the  lake  shores  which,  at  the  time 
of  the  war,  had  been  "covered  with  dark  and  i;Iooiny  forests, 
filled  with  hostile  savaj^es."  was  j^radnally  claimed  for  culti- 
vation and  civilization.  The  tribes  which  Tecumseh  strng- 
pled  to  form  into  a  jjrcat  confederacy  retreated  before  the 
cniif^rants  that  ])ushed  their  way  over  the  Appalachian 
mountains.  SileiUly  and  j.jra(lually  there  ^ww  up  a  com- 
merce which  far  surpassed  the  early  fiu"  trade.  The  demand 
for  a  bettti  conunuiiication  between  b'ast  and  West'  was 
finally  answered  in  the  construction  of  the  Erie  canal  aiid 
the  increased  use  of  the  lakes  for  transportation.  This  in 
turn  led  to  the  more  rapid  j^rowth  of  the  N'orthui-st,  and  the 
waters  which  had  once  been  the  scene  of  the  most  brilliant 
naval  trium])hs  which  adorn  our  history  were  transformed 
into  a  conmiercial  hijii^hway  to  carry  vast  products  to  the 
ocean. 

It  docs  not  appear  to  have  occurred  to  the  pfovernmcnts 
that  with  the  increased  settlements  in  the  West  iiUernal 
troubles  mif,dit  arise  on  either  side  of  the  lakes  and  make  it 
necessary  to  protect  the  frontier  from  lawless  violations  of 
neutrality.  This  very  condition  of  affairs,  however,  was 
brouj;ht  into  existence  in  connection  with  the  Canadian  Re- 
bellion of  1837-38,  when  secret  lodges  of  sympathizers  held 


'See  Niles'  Register,  Feb.  22,  1S17,  p.  423. 


<\y. 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


1.0 


I.I 


1.25 


f  ilM  IIM 

'^: ""-  |||||M 

;r    1^    III  2.0 


1.4 


.8 


1.6 


^i.^^ 


<? 


^ 


n 


/a 


d. 


^A 


O 


7 


/A 


Photographic 

Sdences 

Corporation 


23  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER,  NY.  14580 

(716)  872-4503 


^ 


,\ 


■'S^ 


\\ 


■^ 


^ 


c> 


^^;> 


% 


V 


Q- 


o^ 


92 


Neutrality  of  the  Americaii  Lakes. 


meeting's  in  several  of  our  lake  cities,  and,  by  readiness  to 
rush  blindly  into  conflict,  endangered  our  peace  with  Eng- 
land. Some  joined  these  lodges  because  of  a  hatred  toward 
Great  Britain,  which  had  its  origin  in  the  Revolution  of  1776. 
Others  sympathized  with  the  insurgents  of  Upper  Canada 
simply  because  they  represented  the  weaker  side.  Still  others 
believed  the  rebellion  was  a  struggle  for  liberty  in  Canada. 

The  Canadian  insurgents  received  more  sympathy  at  Buf- 
falo than  at  any  other  point,  on  account  of  the  central  posi- 
tion of  the  place  and  owing  to  the  fact  that  it  had  a  large  float- 
ing population  who  were  out  of  work.  Some  of  the  news- 
papers published  stirring  editorials,  which  were  not  intended 
to  calm  misdirected  sentiment.  When  Mackenzie,  the  leader 
of  the  rebellion,  came  to  Buffalo  on  December  10,  1837,  dem- 
onstrations were  arranged  in  his  honor,  and  spread-eagle 
"orators"  regaled  the  crowds  with  mendacious  speeches. 
Several  of  the  rabble  joined  the  rebel  army.  An  "Executive 
Committee"  was  appointea  at  a  popular  meeting  to  look  after 
the  safety  of  the  city.  There  was  some  fear  that  the  Cana- 
dians would  make  an  attempt  upon  the  city  in  revenge  for 
the  sympathy  shown  the  insurgents.  On  December  21,  Sec- 
retary of  State  Forsyth  gave  instructions  to  the  United  States 
District  Attorney  to  enforce  the  law  in  preserving  neutrality. 
Nevertheless,  several  of  the  rabble  joined  the  insurgent 
forces — some  for  expected  spoils,  some  for  fun,  and  some  to 
kill  time.  The  son  of  old  General  Van  Rensselaer  joined 
because  he  aspired  to  be  a  "Sam  Houston." 

During  the  latter  part  of  December,  1837,  the  insurgents 
were  gathered  at  Navy  Island,  on  the  Canadian  side  of  the 
Niagara  river,  just  above  the  Falls.  Mackenzie  represented 
it  as  the  seat  of  government  for  Upper  Canada,  and  issued  his 
proclamation  declaring  in  favor  of  free  trial,  free  elections, 
free  trade,  free  education,  free  St.  Lawrence,  free  western 
lands  and  freedom  from  weary  prayers  to  lordlings.  Tlis  bait 
did  not  catch  as  many  Americans  for  his  army  as  he  had 
hoped,  though  it  increased  the  sympathy  for  his  cause. 
^  .  Governor  Sir  Francis  Bond  Head,  of  Canada,  soon  issued 


w 


'I  > 


Ca7iadia7i  Rebellion  and  Boundary  Questions. 


93 


a  call  for  troops  to  stop  this  menace  to  the  Government  of 
Canada.  It  was  foimd  that  Mackenzie  had  chartered  the 
steamer  Caroline,  owned  by  American  citizens,  to  carry 
supplies  from  Schlosser,  on  the  American  side,'  to  the  insur- 
gents at  Navy  Island.  On  December  29  a  British  expedi- 
tion crossed  over  to  the  Schlosser  wharf  in  boats,  and,  after 
some  force,  secured  the  Caroline.  Her  decks  were  cleared, 
and  she  was  taken  to  the  middle  of  the  river,  where  she  was 
set  on  fire  and  allowed  to  drift  toward  the  falls.  Durinj":  the 
capture  one  American,  Amos  Durfee,  was  shot  and  left  dead 
on  the  wharf.  In  death  he  received  greater  honors  than  he 
had  ever  received  in  life."  His  body  was  displayed  on  the 
piazza  of  the  city  hall  in  Buffalo,  and  his  funeral  was  exten- 
sively advertised  by  a  panorama  of  placards  illustrated  with 
coffins.  It  was  an  appeal  to  sentiment.  Inflammatory 
speeches  were  made  to  the  excited  multitude  to  persuade 
them  that  the  eagle  had  been  insulted. 

As  the  news  of  the  Caroline  massacre  spread  there  were 
mutterings  of  war.  The  danger  of  filibustering  expeditions 
from  the  United  States  was  increased.  Some  young  men  of 
Buffalo  were  especially  anxious  to  get  hold  of  a  royalist  sheriff, 
McLeod,  who  had  made  threats  against  the  people  of  that 
city.''  Some  who  had  been  passive  sympathizers  with  the 
insurgents  before,  now  l:)ecame  active.  The  manager  of  a 
Detroit  theatre  announced  a  benefit  each  week  for  the 
"Patriots."  Some  urged  a  war  with  England.  A  member  of 
the  "Executive  Committee"  of  Bufifalo  was  reported  to  have 
said  that  he  would  have  a  war  out  of  the  Canada  disturbance 
if  possible.'  The  country  waited  in  suspense  to  sec  what 
course  the  government  would  pursue.  There  was  a  false 
report  that  Mr.  Fox  would  demand  his  passports.    Stocks  in 

New  York  fell  i|  per  cent. "  On  January  7  the  Buffalo  Daily 
• \ — 

'  Sclilosser  Wharf  is  between  Navy  Island  and  N'iagara  Falls. 

'^Lucy  M.  Hawes  :  Buffalo  Fifty  Years  Ago  (pamphlet,  1886). 

^  Dctvoit  Free  Press,  Jan.  6,  1S38. 

*  BuHalo  CoiiiiHercial  ^Uivertiser,  ]m\.  23,  1S3.S. 

^Buiralo  Covimereial  Adi'erliser,  }an.  17. 


wA 


s."  I 


n 


.  a 


94 


Neutrality  of  the  American  Lakes. 


Star  said  that  notwithstandinpf  the  Sabbath  stillne&f,  "ttJhe 
whole  frontier  from  Buffalo  to  Lake  Ontario  row  bristles 
with  bayonets."  The  ferries  were  stopped.  The  two  peoples 
along  the  Niagara  were  watching  each  other. 

There  were  rumors  of  preparation  for  invasion  froini  Can- 
ada. The  people  of  eastern  Chautauqua  county  were  f-cared 
by  the  report  started  by  a  drunken  man  that  3000  ludliaiBiis 
were  coming  from  Canada.'  Conspiracies  against  the  peace 
of  Canada  were  also  being  hatched  all  along  the  line.  "«j«in>- 
eral"  Sutherland,  who  had  enlisted  in  the  insurgent  catisi*  at 
Buffalo,  went  west  to  incite  the  people."  At  Detroit  lae  (ob- 
tained possession  of  several  boats,  with  supplies.  Mra*kets 
were  taken  from  the  jail  and  from  the  door  adjoimitg-  ttlie 
United  States  Alarshal's  office.'  Sutherland  began  to  i<«n:e 
his  proclamations  from  Bois  Blanc  Island,  but  his  air-ca^des 
fell  when  the  Anne,  conmianded  by  the  Irish-Canaidiian,. 
Theller,  was  captured  near  Maiden  on  January  lo-  TEie 
cause  of  the  "Patriots"  was  clearly  on  the  wane  by  J.a:niEairjr 
13,  when  the  cannonading  at  Navy  Island  ceased  and  due  aa- 
surgents  evacuated  the  place. 

In  the  meantime  an  effort  was  being  made  on  each  ^iiJe  to 
prevent  further  trouble.  A  meeting  was  held  in  Bufiailo)  tto 
counteract  the  bad  effect  of  the  previous  meetings.  Il  was 
in  favor  of  non-interference  in  the  affairs  of  Canada.  lit  was 
declared  that  this  was  the  safe  policy  to  prevent  Eriuiih 
steam  frigates  from  appearing  upon  the  lakes,  and  ibte  h^X. 
plan  to  follow  in  order  to  prevent  an  Anglo- !Mexicauni  alli- 
ance. The  Government  at  Washington  was  prompt  m  its 
action.  It  objected  to  the  seizure  of  the  Caroline,  but  ttiiere 
was  a  good  understanding  with  the  British  minister."*  h^VL  ol 
January  9  provided  means  of  preserving  peace  on  tie  5i«iMr- 
der.  The  President  issued  a  proclamation  enjoining  ne-L-.ral- 
ity,  and  Secretary  Woodbury  requested  the  command-tr  ol 

^  Nciv  York  Express,  ]\\w.  3,  1S38. 
'■'Dent  :  Upper  Canadian  Rebellion,  Vol.  2,  p.  224. 
^R.  B.  Ross:  Patriot  War.     {Detroit  Ncivs,  1S90-91.) 
♦  Philadelphia  U.  S.  Gazette,  Jan.  5,  1838. 


I«M. 


Canadian  Rebellion  and  Boundary  Questions. 


95 


the  cutter  Erie  to  go  to  Buffalo  to  aid  in  enforcing  the 
laws.'  General  Scott  was  sent  to  the  frontier,  and  Buffalo 
became  a  military  post.  His  moderation  did  much  to  calm 
the  excitement- on  the  border.  When  the  British  general, 
McNabb,  had  Captain  Drew  to  anchor  two  schooners  in 
American  waters  to  intercept  the  passage  of  the  Barcelona, 
in  which  it  was  believed  the  insurgents  intended  to  depart  for 
the  Michigan  frontier,  Scott  objected,  but,  at  the  same  time, 
he  arranged  to  charter  the  Barcelona  for  his  own  use,  and 
by  keeping  a  watch  on  other  vessels,  he  interfered  with  move- 
ments hostile  to  the  Canadian  Government.  The  insurgents 
tried  to  secure  the  Virginia,  but  they  could  not  get  anyone 
to  give  bonds  for  it.  It  was  also  suggested  by  sympathizers 
in  Buffalo  that  they  get  the  steamer  Peacock  at  Erie,  but 
it  was  feared  "that  the  cutter  and  steamboats  in  the  service  of 
the  United  States  would  interfere."^  General  Van  Rensse- 
laer began  to  feel  that  his  aspirations  to  become  a  "Sam 
Houston"  had  very  little  chance  of  being  realized,  and  he 
soon  went  east  to  see  his  "beloved  intended."  ' 

The  prompt  action  of  the  United  States  Government  in 
preventing  the  "Patriots"  from  organizing  and  from  secur- 
ing lake  vessels  had  hardly  been  expected  by  them.  Donald 
McLeod  wrote:  "The  course  which  your  government  has 
pursued  towards  the  Patriots  seems  to  me  uncalled  for,  espe- 
cially after  the  repeated  insults  and  aggressions  by  the  British 
authorities."  McLeod  accused  the  British  of  having  three 
armed  vessels  on  Lake  Erie  in  violation  of  their  agreemer*- 
with  the  United  States  Government.'  This  and  other  things 
led  him  to  "expect  that  the  United  States  Government  would 
permit  the  Patriot  army  to  proceed  peacefully  through  its 
territory,"  and,  "as  in  the  case  of  Texas,"  let  them  alone  to 
manage  their  own  affairs. 


Morgan  to  Ajt. 


'  BiifTiilo  Coimnerciaf  Advertiser,  ]An.  12,  183S. 
''  Patriot  Letters  (in  RiitTalo  Historical  Library' 
Gen.  McLeod,  Jan.  28,  1838. 
'Patriot  Letters.     Henderson  to  McLeod,  Feb.  4,  1S38. 
*  Patriot  Correspondence.     McLeod  to  Thompson,  Feb.  16,  1838. 


96 


Neutraliiv  of  tJie  American  Lakes. 


Notwithstanding  the  action  of  the  government,  however, 
small  bands  of  insurgents  continued  to  make  attempt  upon 
Canada.'  ■\IcLeod  was  defeated  on  Fighting  Island  in  the 
Detroit  river  on  February  25.  Another  band  was  defeated 
on  Point-Pele  Island  in  western  Lake  Erie. 

The  mutterings  of  war  increased.  The  United  States  Gov- 
ernment had  demanded  redress  "for  the  destruction  of  prop- 
erty and  assassination  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  on  the 
soil  of  New  York  at  Schlosser."  Public  sentiment  was 
worked  up  to  a  high  pitch,  especially  after  the  British  Gov- 
ernment showed  no  disposition  to  make  amends  for  what 
appeared  to  be  clearly  a  violation  of  international  usage. " 
The  danger  of  filibustering  expeditions  from  the  United 
States  to  assist  the  "Patriots"  still  existed. 

Governor-General  Head,  of  Canada,  lost  his  equilibrium, 
and  made  matters  worse.  He  wrote  that  almost  every  United 
States  arsenal  from  Lake  Champlain  to  Lake  Michigan  had 
been  broken  open  in  order  to  enable  American  citizens  to 
invade  Canada.'  Fie  was  inclined  to  believe  the  stories  of 
Sutherland,  in  the  Toronto  jail,  concerning  the  aim  of  the 
United  States  to  get  Canada  as  they  had  Texas.  He  wanted 
greater  defenses  for  Canada,  and  in  this  he  was  opposed  by 
the  home  government.  He  took  occasion  to  ventilate  his 
feelings  so  freely  that  Lord  Glcnelg  wrote  that  he  should 
abstain  from  conduct  or  language  calculated  to  inflame  pas- 
sion and  endeavor  to  "diffuse  a  better  and  more  friendly  feel- 
ing toward  the  neighboring  states." 

The  border  feeling  was  further  aggravated  by  the  contro- 
versy in  Maine  over  the  disputed  boundary.  The  action  of 
lawless  men  from  the  British  provinces  in  cutting  timber 
upon  the  territory  in  dispute,  and  in  seizing  an  agent  whom 
the  government  of  Maine  sent  to  investigate  the  affair,  led 
to  a  sharp  correspondence  between  the  Governor  of  Maine 


'  19  Notes  to  State  Dept. 

'^  Buffalo  Conunercial  Advertiser,  ]m\.  8,  1S38. 

*  Head's  Narrative,  p.  399.     Head  to  Fox,  Mar.  3,  1838. 


ff 


Canadian  Rebellion  and  Boundary  Questions.         97 

and  the  New  Brunswick  authorities.  It  looked  as  if  the  peo- 
ple were  treading  upon  smouldering  coals  which  were  at  any 
time  liable  to  be  blown  into  a  blaze.  There  was  great  danger 
of  a  local  clash  of  arms. 

Some  of  the  frontier  characters  were  determined  to  harass 
the  British  authorities  at  every  opportunity.  On  the  night  of 
May  29  the  Sir  Robert  Peel,  having  among  other  passen- 
gers Colonel  Frasl^er,  a  British  custom-house  officer,  while 
passing  the  Thousand  Islands  was  burned  by  the  notorious 
Bill  Johnson  and  his  associates,  who  yelled  to  the  half- 
dressed  passengers  on  the  shore,  "Remember  the  Caroline, 
"Remember  the  Schlosser."' 

Such  acts  could  not  go  on  always  and  peace  exist.  They 
wore  a  source  of  annoyance  both  to  Canada  and  the  United 
States,  and  if  continued  would  necessitate  a  standing  naval 
and  military  force  in  that  quarter,  and  this  was  opposed  to  the 
policy  and  habits  of  the  American  Government.  The  need 
of  a  larger  force  on  the  lake  frontier  had  already  been  under 
consideration. 

On  May  28,  1838,  the  House  of  Representatives  passed  a 
resolution  instructing  the  Committee  on  Naval  Affairs  to 
inquire  into  the  expediency  of  providing  for  the  construction 
of  an  armed  steani  vessel  on  Lake  Erie.  This  resolution  was 
referred  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  and  on  June  8  he  wrote 
the  chairman  of  the  committee  as  follows: 

"In  reply  to  your  letter  of  the  5th  inst.,  enclosing  resolu- 
tion of  House  of  Representatives  of  May  28  ...  As  the 
objects  of  the  resolution  required  the  participation  of  the 
Treasury  and  War  Departments,  as  well  as  the  Navy,  the 
subject  was  brought  to  the  consideration  of  the  President, 
as  well  as  the  heads  of  those  departments ;  upon  which  it  has 
been  concluded,  with  the  approbation  of  the  President,  to  hire 
or  otherwise  procure  two  steam  vessels,  one  for  Lake  Erie 
and  one  for  Lake  Ontario,  for  the  purposes  mentioned  in  the 

'  Capt.  Van  Cleve  :  Reminiscences  of  Early  Steamboats,  etc.,  p.  47. 
(Capt.  Van  Cleve's  book  is  in  manuscript  and  may  be  seen  at  the 
BulTalo  Historical  Library.) 


-i| 


L.-asSaaS 


98 


Neutrality  of  the  American  Lakes. 


yiiii 


\  I 


resolution,  and  to  be  so  manned  and  c(|uippcd  as  not  to  inter- 
fere with  existing  treaties.  Measures  will  be  at  once  adopted 
for  carrying  this  arrangement  into  effect,  which  it  is  believed 
may  be  done  under  existing  appropriations.'" 

After  these  precautionary  measures,  further  action  by 
Congress  was  considered  unnecessary. 

The  British  authorities  had  also  begun  to  make  some 
naval  preparation.  They  had  temporarily  hired  some  boats 
for  the  expedition  against  the  Caroline.  They  had  also 
hired  two  or  three  schooners  in  the  early  part  of  1838,  and 
armed  them  to  prevent  an  invasion  from  Navy  Island,  but 
these  were  probably  not  retained  after  the  danger  was  past. 
During  the  summer  of  1838  it  appears  that  the  authorities  in 
Upper  Canada  employed  "one  or  more  steamers,  hired  for 
the  purpose,  and  manned  with  a  certain  number  of  troops,  to 
cruise  on  Lake  Erie  against  apprehended  invasions"  of  un- 
lawfully organized  bands  from  the  United  States.  Accord- 
ing to  Colonel  Worth,  the  Canadian  authorities  also  hired 
several  armed  steamers  and  barges  after  the  burning  of  the 
merchant  vessel  Sir  Robert  Peel  in  1838  to  cruise  against 
the  "Patriots"  on  the  St.  Lawrence  and  on  the  Canadian  side 
of  Lake  Ontario. 

Notwithstanding  these  measures  to  protect  the  frontier, 
considerable  alarm  was  still  felt.  In  June  it  was  reported 
that  Donald  McLeod  was  organizing  an  invasion  of  Canada 
for  July  4.  There  was  a  report  of  similar  preparations  at 
Port  Huron.  Toward  the  end  of  the  summer  there  were 
rumors  of  a  widespread  organization  of  "Hunter's  Lodges" 
along  the  border  of  the  United  States,  the  purposes  of  which 
were  unfriendly  to  the  Canadian  Government.  The  Brady 
Guards,  of  Detroit,  were  kept  busy  patroling  the  Detroit  and 
St.  Clair  rivers.  Mr.  Fox  notified  the  State  Department  on 
November  3  that  he  had  information  of  a  large  secret  combi- 
nation in  the  United  States  which  was  preparing  to  wage  war 
on  the  British  provinces,  and  that  "no  less  than  nine  steam- 


*  Reports  of  Committees,  No.  1008,  25-2,  Vol.  4. 


Canadia7i  Rebellion  and  Boundary  Questions. 


99 


boats  that  ply  on  Lake  Erie  had  been  engaged  to  the  service 
of  the  conspirators.'"  The  Secretary  of  State  saw  in  these 
exaggerated  reports  some  room  for  fear,  but  he  assured  Mr. 
Fox  (Novcml)er  15)  that  "regular  military  bands  from  the 
American  side"  would  be  successfully  repressed,  and  stated 
that  the  United  States  Government  would  expect  British 
officers  to  prevent  a  violation  of  the  territory  of  the  United 
States.'  It  was  a  time  for  discretion  and  vigilance  on  both 
sides.  On  November  11  the  United  States,  commanded 
by  Captain  Van  Cleve,  left  Oswego  with  many  filibuster 
passengers  bound  for  Ogdensburg.  She  also  towed  two  "Pa- 
triot" schooners  part  of  the  way.  Colonel  Worth,  United 
States  army,  fcjllowcd  in  the  Telegraph,  seized  all  three 
vessels  at  Ogdensburg  and  took  them  to  Sackett's  Harbor.* 
The  "deluded  youths"  who  were  left  in  Canada  were  soon 
caught  by  the  Canadian  authorities.* 

On  November  21  the  President,  with  good  effect,  issued  a 
proclamation  against  insurgents  from  the  United  States. 
The  Canadians,  however,  felt  the  need  of  more  effective  steps 
to  protect  the  long  frontier.  This,  together  with  the  fact 
that  the  Secretary  of  State  had  called  the  attention  of  Mr. 
Fox  to  the  provisions  of  the  Agreement  of  1817,  caused  that 
gentleman  on  November  25  to  write  the  Department  of  State 
that  it  was  "found  necessary  to  equip  under  the  British  flag 
a  more  extensive  naval  armament"  upon  the  boundary  lakes 
and  rivers  than  was  allowed  by  the  stipulations  of  the  con- 
vention of  1817."  He  apprehended  no  objection  by  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  to  this  temporary  increase  of 
force  to  guard  against  the  unlawful  and  piratical  acts  of  hos- 
tility Wiiich  threatened  the  British  colonies.  In  order  that 
there  might  be  no  misapprehension,  Mr.  Fox  thought  it  ex- 
pedient to  give  assurance  that  the  extra  armament  was 
■ , _ — 

'  19  Notes  to  State  Dept. 

^  6  Notes  from  State  Dept. 

'Van  Cleve  :  Reminiscences  of  Early  Steamboats,  etc.,  p.  11. 

*  Upper  Canadian  Gazette  Extra,  Nov.  16,  1S38. 

*  19  Notes  to  State  Dept. 


m 


■'■  ii 


li 


J! 


li 


100 


NeutraUty  of  the  American  Lakes. 


"equipped  for  the  sole  purpose  ...  of  guardiiij^  Ilcr  Maj- 
esty's provinces  against  a  manifest  and  acknowledged  dan- 
ger," and  he  stated  that  it  would  be  discontinued  "at  the 
earliest  possible  period"  after  the  causes  which  created  the 
danger  should  cease.'  The  United  States  Government  made 
no  objection  to  this  extra  force.  It  seems  to  have  been  sat- 
isfied with  the  explanation  made  by  Air.  Fox  at  this  time.  On 
the  opening  of  navigation  the  next  spring,  however,  it  de- 
cided to  make  provision  for  a  temporary  lake  fleet  in  case  it 
was  needed.  When  a  bill  was  proposed  giving  the  President 
additional  power  in  regard  to  the  augmentation  and  prepara- 
tion of  the  naval  forces  of  the  United  States,  Mr.  Fillmore,  on 
March  i,  proposed  an  amendment  so  that  the  bill  would  also 
include  the  equipment  of  vessels  on  the  lakes.  Mr.  Fillmore 
was  informed  at  this  time  that  the  British  had  one  armed 
steamer  on  Lake  Ontario,  one  on  Lake  Champlain,  and  three 
on  the  upper  lakes,  and  he  suggested  the  advisability  of  tak- 
ing some  steps  in  order  to  be  ready  to  protect  the  commerce 
on  Lake  Erie  where  the  United  States  Government  had  not 
owned  a  vessel  of  any  kind.'  An  act  was  passed  on  March  3, 
the  day  after  the  news  that  blood  had  been  shed  on  the  Maine 
frontier,  which  provided  that  in  event  of  invasion  or  immi- 
nent danger  the  President  should  be  authorized  to  get  coast 
vessels  ready  for  service  "and  to  build,  purchase  of  charter, 
arm,  equip  and  man  such  vessels  and  steamboats  on  the 
Northern  lakes  and  rivers  whose  waters  communicate  with 
the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  as  he  should  deem  neces- 
sar)'  to  protect  the  United  States  from  invasion  from  that 
quarter." 

It  appears  that  during  the  winter  of  1838-39  all  danger 
from  the  "Patriots"  was  gone.    The  season  of  1839  was  more 

'  The  last  serious  raid  of  the  year  occurred  in  the^  Detroit  river. 
Armed  men  on  the  Champlaiu,\A\xx\n^\.\\^  first  week  in^:  December, 
crossed  from  Detroit  to  Windsor  and  set  fire  to  the  steamer|7//o;;/<7j. 
Several  of  the  raiders  were  caught  by  the  Canadians.  Four  were 
shot  and  others  e.xecuted. 

•'Cong.  Globe,  Mar.  i,  1839,  Appendix,  p.  282. 

-  5  U.  S.  Stats,  at  Large. 


Canadian  Rebellion  and  Boundary  Questions.       101 


peaceful.  General  Scott,  who  had  been  sent  to  the  disturbed 
frontier,  was  of  g^reat  service  in  preventing  the  madness  of 
the  few  from  dragging  the  peaceful,  non-contesting  many 
into  an  aggressive  war,  which  would  involve  all  in  crime,  dis- 
aster and  disgrace.  Tn  his  addresses  to  large  gatherings  of 
"Patriot"  sympathizers  he  reminded  them  that  if,  in  the  at- 
tempt to  force  on  unwilling  neighbors  independence  and  free 
institutions,  we  had  first  to  spurn  and  trample  under  foot 
treaty  obligations  and  laws  made  by  our  own  representatives, 
we  should  greatly  hazard  free  institutions  at  home  in  the  con- 
fidence and  respect  of  our  own  people.  The  trial  and  convic- 
tion of  Mackenzie  in  the  United  States  in  June  also  had  a 
good  effect,  by  preventing  him  from  making  agitating 
speeches. 

By  the  autumn  of  1839  the  Secretary  of  State  felt  that 
there  was  no  longer  any  danger  of  acts  of  hostility  against 
Canada.  The  British  authorities  also  felt  that  all  danger  was 
passing  away.  General  Scott  did  not  hear  of  a  single  armed 
British  vessel  on  Lake  Erie  during  the  year.'  As  a  security 
against  the  renewal  of  the  troubles  of  the  preceding  year, 
however,  the  British  authorities  owned  or  hired  two  steam- 
ers, one  schooner  and  several  barges,  which  were  employed 
on  Lake  Ontario  and  the  St.  Lawrence  river  up  to  the  close 
of  navigation.  Mr.  Fox  thought  that  in  case  no  new  at- 
tempts against  the  peace  of  Canada  should  occur  during  the 
winter  there  would  be  no  good  reason  for  keeping  a  larger 
force  than  that  prescribed  by  the  Agreement  of  1817.  The 
abuses  which  led  to  the  Canadian  rebellion  were  being  cor- 
rected, and  the  sympathizers  on  both  sides  the  border  recog- 
nized that  it  was  foolish  to  try  to  change  the  destiny  of  the 
Dominion  by  unlawful  movements. 

In  his  annual  message  to  Congress,  December,  1839,  Mr. 
Van  Buren  stated  that  "there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that 
disturbances  like  those  which  lately  agitated  the  neighboring 


im^|:wlf;r 


':M 


'  Report  of  Scott  to  Secretary  Poinsett,  ISIar.  23,  1S40. 
Doc.  163,  26-1. 


In  Exec. 


102 


Neutrality  of  the  American  Lakes. 


i 


% 


British  provinces  will  not  again  prove  the  sources  of  border 
contentions  or  interpose  obstacles  to  the  continuance  of  that 
good  understanding  which  it  is  the  nuitual  interest  of  (Ireat 
Britain  and  the  United  Sta» or,  to  preserve  and  maintain."  He 
said  that  "within  the  province  tranquillity  is  restored,  and  on 
our  frontiers  that  misguided  sympathy  in  favor  of  what  was 
presumed  a  general  efYort  in  behalf  of  popular  rights  and 
which  in  some  instances  misled  a  few  of  our  inexperienced 
citizens,  has  subsided  into  a  rational  conviction  strongly  op- 
posed to  all  intermeddling  with  the  internal  afifairs  of  our 
neighbors.'"  He  hoped  that  future  immigrants  from  Canada 
would  abstain  from  attempts  to  endanger  the  peace  of  the 
country  which  gave  them  an  asylum. 

At  the  opening  of  the  year  1840  social  and  business  inter- 
course had  been  resumed  along  the  frontier,^  but  there  were 
other  dangerous  questions  already  above  the  horizon,  and 
the  war  hawks  did  not  cease  shouting  for  the  fray,  though 
they  were  kept  in  check  by  the  disapprobation  of  the  ma- 
jority of  the  people  in  the  United  States  and  by  the  wisdom 
of  the  higher  officials  on  both  sides  of  the  lakes.  In  the 
United  States  it  was  felt  that  the  British  had  not  yet  given 
satisfactory  answer  in  regard  to  the  invasion  of  the  United 
States  territory  by  the  expedition  against  the  Caroline. 
Mr.  Fox  had  placed  it  on  the  same  footing  as  the  invasion 
of  Florida  by  United  States  troops, 'whic'i  had  been  justified 
by  President  Monroe  in  his  messages  of  March  25  and  No- 
vember ly,  1818.  There  were  also  reports  that  the  British 
were  strengthening  their  military  means  upon  the  Maine 
boundary.  This  was  not  in  harmony  with  the  arrangement 
made  between  the  Governor  of  Maine  and  the  authorities  of 
New  Brunswick  through  the  interposition  of  General  Scott 
in  1839.  It  was  also  believed  that  the  military  and  naval 
preparations  which  had  appeared  necessary  in  1838  were  to 
be  continued. 


'Journal  of  Senate,  26-1,  1839-40. 

"^  Toronto  Examiner,  ]An.  i,  1840.     Also,  Ogdensburg  Times. 
'19  Notes  to  State  Dept.,  Oct.  21,  1839. 


;;/•■ 


;•,;') 


',;-i' 


Canadian  Rebellion  and  Boundary  Questions.       108 

The  condition  of  the  northern  frontier  attracted  consider- 
able attention  in  Congress  in  February,  1840.  In  March,  ac- 
tive measures  were  taken  to  ascrtain  the  truth  concerning 
the  various  rumors  of  extensive  British  defenses.  On  March 
9  the  foUowinj.^  res(jhition  passed  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives: 

"Tliat  the  President  of  the  United  States  be  requested  to 
communicate  to  this  House,  if  compatible  with  tl:e  public 
service,  whether  the  Clovernmcnt  of  fireat  Britain  has  ex- 
pressed to  the  Government  of  the  United  States  a  desire  to 
annul  the  arrangement  entered  into  between  the  two  (jov- 
ernments  in  the  month  of  April,  1817,  respecting  the  naval 
force  to  be  maintained  upon  the  American  lakes;  and  that, 
if  said  arrangement  be  not  annulled,  whether  there  has  been 
any  violation  of  the  same  by  the  authorilit ,  of  Great  Britain." 

On  xMarch  12  Mr.  Norvell  offered  a  resolution,  "That  the 
President  of  the  United  States  be  recjuested  to  cause  to  be 
communicated  to  the  Senate  all  the  information  that  is  pos- 
sessed by  the  government,  or  can  be  conveniently  obtained, 
of  the  military  and  naval  preparation  of  the  English  Govern- 
ment on  the  northern  frontier  of  the  United  States,  from 
Lake  Superior  to  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  distinguishing  the  per- 
manent from  the  ten:porary  and  field  works  and  particularly 
noting  these  which  are  within  the  claimed  limits  of  the  United 
States.'" 

In  submitting  the  resolution,  he  said  that  >  was  his  firtn 
conviction,  and  had  been  for  a  long  time,  "that  the  period  had 
arrived  when  preparations  of  a  military  and  naval  character 
on  one  side  of  our  northern  frontier  ought  to  be  met  by  cor- 
responding preparation  on  the  other  side."  He  thought  that 
while  the  British  Government  was  "amusing  us  with  negotia- 
tions as  Philip  amused  the  Athenians,  it  was  making  quiet 
and  steady  progress  in  preparing  for  offensive  and  defensive 
operations"  along  our  undefended  frontier  from  Maine  to 
Lake  Superior. 

'Congressional  Globe,  Vol.  S,  26-1,  pp.  262-3. 


rrf'^ 


■X\'  ,1'  ■ 

.■■('.'.•li;-:!", 


■4h  T 


f. '':  -li" 


■n 


\¥ 


li: 


iiil 

^!     . 

ill 

!■  : 

i 

ii  ■, 

r 

104 


Neutrality  of  the  American  Lakes. 


"Along  the  whole  line  of  Lake  Ontario,  it  had  been  stated 
that  new  military  works  were  in  the  progress  of  construction, 
and  that  the  old  works  were  in  a  course  of  being  strength- 
ened. The  military  posts  at  Maiden  had  also,  as  he  had 
learned,  been  rendered  stronger.  White  Wood  Island,  which 
had  been  many  years  ago  most  unfortunately  ceded  to  the 
British,  was,  as  he  had  been  informed  in  letters,  fortified,  or 
about  to  be  fortified.  That  island  was  in  the  river  Detroit, 
near  its  mouth;  and,  with  a  powerful  battery,  it  would  com- 
mand the  passage  of  both  the  American  and  British  chan- 
nels of  the  river,  and  lay  the  whole  of  the  upper  lake  country, 
with  its  important  military  posts,  its  flourishing  cities  and 
villages,  at  the  mercy  of  an  enemy.  Military  works  were 
constructed,  or  constructing,  at  Sandwich  and  Windsor,  im- 
mediately opposite  to  Detroit.  And  that  prosperous  city 
could,  from  these  works,  in  one  hour,  be  laid  in  ashes.  And 
what  was  the  state  of  defensive  military  preparation  on  our 
side  in  that  quarter?  Why,  sir,  we  had  not  even  the  benefit  of 
public  barracks  for  the  protection  and  accommodation  of 
the  miserable  skeletons  of  companies  which  were  stationed 
there.  The  commanding  ofificers  were  compelled  to  rent  a 
house  at  the  water's  edge  for  their  accommodation. 

"He  had  been  told  that  the  British  authorities  were  build- 
ing one  or  two  steam  frigates  on  Lake  Ontario  and  Lake 
Erie.  Such  a  measure  was  a  departure  from  the  spirit  of  that 
arrangement  by  which  the  American  and  British  navies  were 
respectively  reduced  to  one  vessel  on  Lake  Champlain,  one 
on  Lake  Ontario,  and  two  on  Lake  Erie  and  the  upper  lakes, 
not  exceeding  one  hundred  tons  burden  each,  and  e?ch  car- 
rying but  one  gun.  Were  the  steam  frigates  to  be  of  one 
hundred  tons  burden,  and  to  carry  but  one  cannon?  Nobody 
could  believe  it." 

Mr.  Norvell  said  he  was  not  anxious  for  war,  but  he 
thought  that  the  collection  of  men,  the  accumulation  of  ma- 
terials, and  the  preparation  of  naval  vessels  along  the  frontier, 
together  with  the  fact  that  the  British  "were  negotiating  for 
the  purchase  of  California,"  indicated  that  a  crisis  was  ap- 
proaching which  demanded  vigilant  preparation. 


Canadian  Rebellion  and  Boundary  Questions.       105 

It  does  not  seem  that  there  was  so  much  clanger  as  Mr. 
Norvell  had  been  led  to  believe.  Mr.  Calhoun  thought  that 
there  was  no  real  danger  along  the  inland  frontier  except  in 
case  of  an  actual  collision  of  the  local  authorities  along  the 
Maine  boundary.*  On  April  i,  in  the  Senate,  he  said  that  he 
"regarded  the  British  possessions  on  the  frontier  as  a  pledge 
of  peace,  and  not  a  source  of  danger." 

The  House  was  at  least  determined  to  get  all  the  necessary 
information  to  enable  it  to  decide  what  was  best  to  be  done. 
On  April  6  a  resolution  was  moved  by  Mr.  Fillmore,  and 
adopted  by  the  House,  requesting  the  President  to  commu- 
nicate "any  information  in  possession  of  the  executive  de- 
partment showing  the  military  preparation  of  Great  Britain, 
by  introducing  troops  into  Canada  or  New  Brunswick,  or 
erecting  or  repairing  fortifications  on  our  northern  and 
northeastern  boundary,  or  by  preparing  naval  armaments  on 
any  of  the  great  northern  lakes  or  the  waters  connected  with 
them,  and  what  preparations,  if  any,  have  been  made  by  this 
government  to  put  the  United  States,  and  especially  the 
northern  and  northeastern  frontiers,  in  a  posture  of  defense 
against  Great  Britain  in  case  of  war." 

On  April  9  the  House  considered  a  resolution  of  Mr.  Hand, 
of  New  York,  requesting  that  the  Secretary  of  War  commu- 
nicate "what  works  he  considered  necessary  to  be  con- 
structed in  order  to  place  the  northern  and  northeastern 
frontiers  in  a  proper  and  permanent  state  of  defense."  ^  This 
resolution  was  extended,  at  the  request  of  Mr.  Wise,  of  Vir- 
ginia, so  as  to  embrace  an  "entire  system  of  defense." 

In  the  discussion  no  one  claimed  to  be  seriously  alarmed. 
Mr.  Wise,  in  his  principal  speech,  talked  of  our  defenseless 
condition  in  the  face  of  a  threatened  war;  he  said  we 
"stood  now  in  the  presence  of  the  British  lion  himself,"  and 
with  less  means  of  defense  than  any  other  power,  Civilized  or 
barbarous,  of  one -tenth  our  physical  force;  he  thought  it  folly 


'Congressional  Globe,  26-1,  Vol.  8,  Appendix,  p.  369. 
'■'Congressional  Globe,  26-1,  Vol.  8,  pp.  ,^1-313. 


■l.„ 


106 


Nejitrality  of  the  Amcn'cart  Lakes. 


to  talk  of  war  about  a  few  pine  logs  when  .  .  .  every  por- 
tion of  our  frontier  was  "exposed  to  British  aggression  and 
British  bayonets."  A  few  minutes  later  Mr.  Wise  added:  "I 
am  no  alarmist.  I  have  no  idea  that  there  is  to  be  a  war,  but 
I  go  for  the  necessity  of  fortifications  upon  the  most  liberal 
scale  for  a  peace  establishment."  Mr.  Hand  was  no  alarmist. 
He  had  no  desire  for  an  exciting  and  injudicious  debate. 
"yVll  he  desired  now  was  that  the  House  might  be  fully  in- 
formed." 

Mr.  John  Quincy  Adams  "thought  that  there  was  not  the 
slightest  danger  at  this  moment  of  a  war  with  Great  Britain, 
or  fvir  years  to  come"  (and  he  was  sorry  that  Mr.  Rhett.  of 
South  Carolina,  was  not  glad  to  hear  it).  Mr.  Adams 
founded  his  opinion  upon  the  character  of  the  President's  mes- 
sage, and  upon  the  grovving  probability  that  the  northeast- 
ern boundary  question  would  be  settled  by  arbitration,  since 
Maine  was  now  ready  to  refer  the  settlement  to  the  United 
States  Government.  Mr.  Thompson  thought  fortifications 
were  not  necessary,  and  desired  to  await  further  news  from 
England  before  arming  the  country. 

From  March  to  July  the  executive  department  endeavored 
to  secure  all  the  information  possible  regarding  the  subjects 
mentioned  in  the  various  resolutions  of  inquiry  which  passed 
the  House. 

On  ]\Iarch  28  Mr.  Van  Buien  communicated  reports  from 
the  Secretaries  of  State  and  of  War,'  with  documents,  which 
gave  evidence  that  the  British  Government  had  not  shown 
any  desire  to  annul  the  Agreement  of  181 7.  Mr.  Forsyth 
enclosed  Mr.  Fox's  note  of  November  25,  1838,  concerning 
the  necessity  of  a  temporary  increase  of  naval  force,  and  said 
that  "prior  to  the  date  of  that  communication  the  Secretary 
of  State,  in  an  interview  invited  for  that  purpose,  called  Mr. 
Fox's  attention  to  the  disregard  by  Her  Majesty's  colonial 
authorities  of  the  convention  arrangement  between  the  two 
countries  as  to  the  extent  of  naval  armaments  upon  the  lakes. 


'  House  Exec.  Doc,  No,  63,  26-1. 


Canadia7i  Rebellioti  and  Boundary  Questions.       107 

In  the  autumn  of  the  past  year  the  Secretary  of  State  made 
known  verbally  to  Mr.  Fox  that,  the  causes  assigned  in  his 
note  no  longer  existing,  the  President  expected  that  the  Brit- 
ish armament  upon  the  lakes  would  be  placed  upon  the  foot- 
ing jjrescribed  by  the  convention.  Mr.  Fox  engaged  to 
connnunicate  without  delay  to  this  government  the  sub- 
stance of  the  conversation  between  them,  and  expressed  his 
own  conviction  that,  if  the  winter  then  ensuing  passed  with- 
out renewed  attempts  to  disturb  the  tranquillity  of  the  Can- 
adas,  there  could  be  no  sufficient  motive  for  either  govern- 
ment maintaining  a  force  beyond  that  authorized  by  the  con- 
vention of  1817." 

Mr.  Poinsett,  Secretary  of  War,  enclosed  a  report  of  Gen- 
eral Scott  (dated  March  23),  w-ho  stated  that  he  did  not  think 
the  British  had  had  an  armed  vessel  above  Detroit  for  many 
years;  that  they  had  hired  temporarily  one  or  two  armed 
steamers  on  Lake  Erie  in  1838,  and  that  they  had  employed 
on  the  St.  Lawrence  and  the  Canadian  side  of  Lake  Ontario, 
up  to  the  close  of  navigation  in  1839,  two  steamers,  one 
schooner  and  a  number  of  barges. 

On  June  29,  Mr,  Van  Buren  sent  to  the  Plouse  a  second 
communication  in  answer  to  the  resolution  of  March  9  c(mi- 
cerning  the  attitude  of  Great  Britain  to  the  Agreement  of 
1817.'  It  contained  a  report  of  Alexander  Macomb,  the 
Connnanding  General,  to  tl.^-  Secretary  of  War  (June  26),  in 
which  he  gave  replies  of  various  officers  who  had  been  ad- 
dressed upon  the  subject.' 

Colonel  Bankhead  had  no  infoimation  that  the  Agreement 
of  1817  had  been  violated.  lie  said  that  a  large  vessel  for  a 
steamer  was  being  constructed  in  the  autumn  of  1839  at  Ni- 


v^ 


^M 


'  House  E.xec.  Doc,  No.  246,  26-1,  Vol.  7. 

'^The  President  had  given  tlie  Secretary  of  War  instructions  to 
report  "any  specific  information  in  possession  of  the  War  Depart- 
ment relative  to  the  British  naval  armaments  on  the  lakes,  and  the 
periods  when  tiie  increase  of  force,  beyond  the  stipulations  of  the 
convention  of  1817,  were  severally  made  on  different  points  of  the 
lake  frontier." 


it    -s 


108 


Nctitrality  of  the  American  Lakes. 


agara  for  the  service  of  the  government,  and  tliait  the 
British  Government  had  on  Lake  Ontario  a  steamboat  iDoinns- 
manded  by  officers  of  the  navy,  and  probably  comTni*.?i<0'meidl 
as  a  government  vessel.  He  was  also  informed  that  ""ttfiic 
authorities  in  upper  Canada  had  last  summer  in  their  5«irTtce 
on  Lake  Erie  two  steamboats  which  were  at  first  hirtid  finom 
citizens  of  Bufifalo,  but  which  they  subsequently  puTdha^^ii." 
Colonel  Crane,  of  Buffalo,  had  no  information  on  the  fiaib'iecL 
He  said  that  there  had  "been  rumors  there  of  armed  stfauimers 
being  built  or  building  at  Chippewa,  etc..  but  on  mqTanny  he 
could  learn  of  none,  except  the  ordinary  steamboat?  Im  the 
navigation  of  the  lakes."  He  had  also  heard  it  slatted  alhat  a 
steamer  was  being  built  on  Lake  Ontario  by  the  Engliflfa.  and 
intended  for  the  revenue  service,  but  he  did  not  kncnsr  wfiat 
truth  there  was  in  this  statement.  Colonel  Pierce  A\Tc>lf  fr^  .m 
Plattsburg  that  he  had  no  knowledge  of  any  nava]  fo'T^cc:  lon 
Lake  Champlain  in  violation  of  the  arrangement  of  1 8ii~.  He 
believed  there  had  been  no  British  naval  force  maintaiinjte4  on 
Lake  Champlain  since  that  arrangement  had  been  concIlm!ffI«efL 
These  replies,  together  with  the  letter  of  Genera]  Snotlt, 
which  had  been  sent  to  Congress  on  March  28.  embraiCiw!  aU 
the  information  that  the  War  DepartmeMt  could  give  HDpoti 
the  subject.  The  Navy  Department  had  not  been  a^fced  in 
regard  to  the  matter,  probably  because  there  were  no  iniaval 
officers  upon  the  lakes  to  assist  in  getting  informatioaiL  Ac- 
cording to  the  rumors  mentioned  in  these  report?,  h  -^oes 
not  appear  that  there  was  any  extensive  naval  prejiHrac^ja 
by  the  British  authorities  upon  the  lakes.  Possibly  s-oiimie  ol 
the  temporary  augmentation  during  1838  was  made  in  igriiKor- 
ance  of  the  agreement  between  the  two  nations/ 


'  Colonel  Brady,  of  Detroit,  wrote  that  he  did  not  know  »2ii<i:flEi<»r 
the  arrangement  had  been  violated  by  the  British  Govemmt-E:  tor 
he  never  knew  that  there  was  such  an  understanding;  be-ivrtri  rJie 
two  governments  until  the  resolution  of  Congress  making  lb«  imijairy 
was 'sent  to  him.  During  the  border  troubles  he  frequtnlilT  icada 
piece  of  ordnance  on  board  the  steamboat  in  the  emplor  io<f  tfie 
United  States  ;  and  besides  that,  had  the  service  demanded  iiiu  fee 
should  not  have  hesitated  to  have  increased  the  number,  i>Cia  h«tim?5 
aware  of  the  arrangement  referred  to. 


Canadian  Rebellion  and  Boundary  Questions. 


109 


the  long  peace,  in  which  there  was  a  total  disregard  of  any 
force  at  all,  many  would  not  have  known  that  such  a  treaty 
existed: 

On  June  29,  President  Van  Buren,  in  response  to  Mr.  Fill- 
more's resolution  of  inquiry  of  April  6,  sent  to  the  House  a 
communication  from  the  Secretary  of  War,  accompanied  by 
a  report  from  the  Commanding  General  of  the  Army.  This 
report  gave  the  replies  of  the  officers  at  the  principal  points 
on  the  frontier,  from  which  it  appears  that  the  British  had 
strengthened  their  works  at  Maiden  on  the  Detroit  river,  at 
Fort  Mississanga  near  the  mouth  of  the  Niagara,  at  Kingston 
on  the  lower  part  of  Lake  Ontario,  at  Fort  Wellington,  op- 
posite Ogdensburg,  N.  Y.,  and  at  the  Isle  aux  Noix,  in  the 
outlet  of  Lake  Champlain.  Tl  ey  had  also  commenced  new 
barracks  at  Toronto  and  St.  John.-,  aiM  had  in  the  provinces 
20,000  regular  troops,  of  which  two-thirds  had  arrived  in 
Canada  since  the  spring  of  1838. 

These  official  replies  do  not  intimate  that  Great  Britain  had 
any  offensive  designs.  It  wai  understood  that  the  prepara- 
tions had  been  made  "to  suppress  rebellion  and  insurrection 
among  the  Canadian  population."  General  Scott  was  not 
alarmed.  He  believed  that  there  were  no  important  British 
forts  on  our  borders  from  \'ermont  to  Maine.  The  works 
erected  near  the  borders  of  Maine,  above  Frederickton,  were 
of  little  military  value,  and  he  "had  heard  of  no  new  military 
preparation  by  the  British  authorities  on  the  St.  Croix  or 
Passamaquoddy  Bay." 

After  receiving  this  report,  the  question  of  defense  upon 
the  northern  frontier  attracted  less  attention  in  Congress. 
During  the  first  part  of  July  most  of  its  time  was  occupied 
widi  bills  for  pensions  and  other  private  claims.  Further 
alarm  might  have  been  avoided,  but  for  the  border  feeling 
engendered  by  a  new  turn  in  the  Caroline  affair. 

In  November,  1S40,  Alexander  ^IcLeod,  a  deputy  sheriff 
in  Upper  Canada,  came  across  to  New  York  State  and 
boasted  that  he  was  the  slayer  of  Durfee  on  the  Schlosser 
wharf  when  the  Caroline  was  taken.     He  was  at  once  ar- 


■1   1! 


m 


tm 


'  -  •^'^^ 


■i.E  £!"E     ■  .  :''■ 


i! 


ml 
111;; 


110 


Neutrality  of  the  American  Lakes. 


rested  and  placed  in  the  Lockport  jail  on  the  charge  of  arson 
and  murder.  This  aroused  the  indignation  of  the  English, 
and  Mr.  Fox  asked  his  release.  When  Forsyth  replied  that 
McLeod  was  in  the  hands  of  New  York  courts  and  must  wait 
for  deliverance  in  regular  course,  Lord  Palmerston  directed 
Fox  to  proceed  as  though  the  attack  on  the  Caroline  was 
done  by  authority  of  the  British  Government.  When  the 
Harrison  administration  came  in,  t  made  an  attempt  to  have 
the  matter  tried  as  a  national  afifai- ,  but  New  York  would  not 
give  up  the  prisoner.  Mr.  Webster,  the  new  Secretary  of 
State,  liad  to  inform  Mr.  Fox  that  McLeod  was  in  the  cus- 
tody of  law,  and  could  not  be  given  up  except  by  process  of 
law.  When  the  correspondence  upon  this  subject  was  sent 
to  Congress  in  June,  1841,  it  led  to  vehement  debates.  The 
rumor  in  New  York  that  England's  Mediterranean  fleet  was 
held  in  readiness  to  emphasize  the  demand  for  the  release  of 
McLeod  did  not  tend  to  calm  public  feeling. 

Another  occasion  for  further  discontent  at  the  policy  of  the 
British  Government  was  presented  on  July  14,  1841,  when 
the  President  sent  to  the  House  a  part  of  the  correspondence 
between  the  Secretary  of  State  at  Washington  and  the  United 
States  minister  at  London,  relating  to  the  "seizure  of  Ameri- 
can vessels  by  British  armed  cruisers  under  the  pretence  that 
they  were  engaged  in  the  slave  trade.'"  These  new  sources 
of  bad  feeling  had  a  tendency  to  revive  disorders  which  had 
already  been  pacified  by  prudence  and  good  fortune. 

It  does  not  appear  that  England  had  any  offensive  motive 
in  increasing  her  force  in  America  at  this  time.  But  the  con- 
dition of  relations  between  the  two  countries  led  to  a  renewal 
in  Congress  of  discussions  concerning  lake  defenses.'  In 
the  early  part  of  1841  there  were  various  reports  in  favor  of 
recommencing  the  work  upon  lake  harbors  which  had  been 
suspended,  but  in  July  the  talk  for  defensive  measures  was 
upon  a  higher  key  than  harbor  improvements.    On  July  12 

'  House  Exec.  Doc,  No.  34,  27-1. 

'  Congressional  Globe,  27-1,  \'ol.  10,  p.  273.   See  Appendix,  p.  141. 


Canadian  Rcbellioji  and  Boimdary   Questions.       Ill 

Mr.  Ward,  of  New  York,  said  he  hoped  the  United  States 
would  not  go  to  sleep  and  dream  that  wc  should  have  no 
war.  He  favored  an  increase  of  naval  force.  On  July  31  the 
House  considered  a  resolution  in  favor  of  armed  steamers 
between  northern  and  southern  ports  and  upon  the  principal 
rivers,  bays  and  lakes.  On  August  2,  Mr.  Young,  feeling 
that  the  \\^est  and  Northwest  were  not  getting  their  share  in 
the  naval  and  other  appropriations,  spoke  in  favor  of  defenses 
at  Detroit,  and  gave  military  as  well  as  commercial  reasons 
for  completing  a  "safe,  convenient,  and  permanent  harbor" 
at  Chicago.'  Its  position  with  respect  to  facilities  of  procur- 
ing provisions  and  for  transportation,  and  its  unequalled 
adaptation  for  harbors,  into  which  armed  steamers  and  other 
armed  vessels  might  retire  for  repairs  and  supplies,  would 
add  peculiar  value  to  this  inland  sea.  And  in  event  of  war 
between  the  United  States  and  the  power  in  possession  of 
half  of  all  the  other  lakes,  Lake  Michigan  might  become  the 
scene  of  contention.  A  loss  of  its  possession  would  certainly 
be  attended  with  consequences  of  serious  import  to  the  com- 
merce, agriculture  and  safety  of  a  large  and  growing  portion 
of  the  West.  But  it  was  probably  not  from  needs  of  defense 
so  much  as  of  commerce  that  Mr.  Young  was  dissatisfied 
towards  his  fellow-members  in  not  providing  for  the  Chicago 
harbor.  He  said  that  for  want  of  a  harbor  many  vessels  had 
recently  been  lost  in  a  gale,  and  that  it  was  a  "pity  they  were 
not  freighted  with  members  of  Congress." 

In  the  fortification  bill,  the  committee  had  not  seen  fit  to 
provide  for  defense  along  the  lake  frontier.  Mr.  Porter,  of 
Michigan,  offered  an  amendment  for  defensive  works  at  De- 
troit.^ Mr.  Woodbridge  advocated  the  amendment  as  neces- 
sary to  protect  the  commerce  which  had  to  pass  through  the 
Detroit  river,  and,  in  case  of  war,  to  prevent  a  return  of  the 
disastrous  results  which  followed  Hull's  surrender.  He 
dangled  the  skeleton  of  181 2  before  his  hearers,  and  asked 
them  to  remember  the  river  Raisin. 


'Congressional  Globe,  27-1,  Vol.  10,  pp.  278,  2S1,  etc. 
^Congressional  Globe,  27-1,  Vol.  10,  p.  284. 


112 


Nexitralily  of  the  American  Lakes. 


Air.  Allen,  of  Ohio,  on  August  3,  moved  an  amendment  to 
the  amendment  of  Senator  Porter  "for  the  construction  of 
armed  steamers  and  other  vessels  of  the  government  on  Lake 
Erie,  $100,000."  He  said  he  did  not  ofifer  it  with  a  view  to 
benefit  any  particular  portion  of  the  country,  but,  that  "hav- 
ing understood  the  Britis'  had  two  armed  steamers  on  that 
lake,  he  thought  armed  steamers  were  necessary  to  watch 
armed  steamers."  He  also  .^>oke  of  the  capture  of  the  Caro- 
line at  Schlosser,  and  said  the  "Senate  would  not  do  its  duty 
if  it  did  not  put  its  seal  of  reprobation  upon  the  doctrines  of 
international  law,  which  had  been  officially  promulgated  by 
the  Secretary  of  State." 

Some  local  feeling  is  shown  in  these  debates.  In  case 
there  were  to  be  defenses,  each  section  of  the  country  had  a 
claim.  Mr.  Phelps  said  that  if  Lake  Erie  was  to  have  vessels, 
Lake  Champlain  should  have  her  share  also.  Mr.  Evans,  of 
Maine,  said  that  treaty  arrangements  with  Great  Britain  re- 
stricted the  construction  of  armed  vessels  upon  the  lakes, 
but  Mr.  White  "was  not  to  be  deterred  from  standing  up  for 
the  justice  of  the  West."  In  case  of  a  war,  he  said  hostilities 
would  be  carried  on  by  harassing  the  northern  frontier  and 
destroying  the  conmierce  of  the  Northwest.  "As  a  western 
man,  he  was  bound  to  have  an  eye  to  the  interests  of  that 
great  section,  whose  representatives,  if  they  would  act  to- 
gether, could  soon  take  care  of  themselves.  Who  paid  the 
taxes  of  this  country?  Those  vast  masses  which  people  the 
fertile  valleys  of  the  West — all  laboring  men,  and  all  gentle- 
men, who  individually  consume  more-dutiable  articles  than 
any  other  portion  of  the  Union." 

On  August  4  Mr.  Allen,  of  Ohio,  renewed  his  motion  for 
an  amendment  to  appropriate  $100,000  for  armed  vessels  on 
Lake  Erie,  for  the  purpose  (as  he  said)  of  "making  our  force 
equal  to  that  of  the  British  Government  whose  steamers  were 
cruising  about  our  coast  prying  into  its  exposed  parts."  Mr. 
Porter,  who  was  ready  to  vote  for  the  amendment,  said  that 
the  means  of  transportation  on  the  lakes  were  almost  exclu- 
sively in  the  hands  of  the  United  States.    The  British  Gov- 


i 'X'  ■  ^ 


n 


Canadian  Rebellion  ayid  Boundary  Questions.       113 


^1. 


eminent  had  only  two  steamers  of  one  hundred  tons  each, 
and  the  Americans  had  thirty  or  forty  steamers  of  from  two 
himdrcd  to  eight  hundred  tons;  but  he  could  not  say  whether 
the  merchant  steamers  would  be  able  to  cope  with  the  two 
armed  steamers  of  four  hundred  tons  each  which,  according 
to  the  newspapers,  the  British  had  recently  built. 

Mr.  Woodbridge  said  that  there  were  enough  vessels,  if 
armed  and  equipped,  to  defend  the  lakes  in  any  case  of  emer- 
gency against  any  possible  force  that  could  be  mustered  by 
the  British,  but  he  wanted  Congress  to  know  that  it  was 
Detroit  which  was  in  the  jaws  of  the  lion  and  needed  an  ap- 
propriation for  defenses.  He  did  not  think  the  British  had 
violated  the  spirit  of  the  treaty  of  1817,  and  thought  that  the 
amendment  for  placing  armed  vessels  upon  the  lakes  by  the 
United  States  Government  should  have  a  proviso  that  noth- 
ing should  be  done  to  violate  the  provisions  of  that  treaty. 
Mr.  Allen  said  that  the  greater  number  of  United  States  mer- 
chant vessels  only  made  it  the  more  necessary  to  provide 
armed  steamers  to  defend  them  and  the  commerce  which 
they  carried.  His  amendment  was  adopted,  after  being 
modified  so  as  "to  appropriate  one  hundred  thousand  dollars 
for  the  construction  and  armament  of  armed  steamers  or 
other  vessels  on  the  northwestern  lakes,  as  the  President 
may  think  most  proper,  and  be  authorized  by  the  treaty  with 
the  British  Government." 

On  August  1 1  the  Senate  ordered  to  be  printed  a  petition 
of  persons  along  the  northwestern  frontier  ("Rufus  L.  Reed 
and  others")  asking  an  increase  of  maritime  and  military 
forces  on  the  lakes  and  frontiers.'  It  spoke  of  the  late  in- 
crease of  the  forces  of  their  Canadian  neighbors  upon  these 
inland  seas,  which  now  consisted  of  "two  large  war  steamers 
of  sufificient  capacity  to  mount  30  guns  each  and  which  are 
now  in  commission  and  exploring  the  different  harbors  on 
both  sides  of  the  line,"  while  the  United  States  had  "no  for- 
tification in  any  kind  of  repair  from  Sackett's  Harbor  to 


'  Senate  Exec.  Doc,  No.  88,  27-1. 


114 


A\'iilrali{y  of  the  American   I  akes. 


;:;!: 


lip 


^fackinavv,  a  distance  of  looo  tnilcs  .  .  .  and  no  maritime 
force  except  a  revenue  cutter  of  sixty  tons." 

The  petitioners  were  "aware  that  tlicre  is  but  a  mere 
shadow  of  a  prospect  of  war  at  present,"  but  they  believed  in 
preparing  for  war  in  time  of  peace,  and  recommended  .  .  . 
the  establishment  of  such  a  maritime  force  as  the  wisdom  of 
Congress  saw  fit  "to  meet  the  exigencies  of  the  times." 

On  August  12  the  subject  of  lake  defenses  was  again  dis- 
cussed in  the  Senate.  Mr.  Wright,  of  New  York,  traced  the 
boundary  from  Vermont  to  Michigan.'  For  Lake  Cham- 
plain, where  McDonough  won  his  "ever  memorable  victory," 
for  Lake  Ontario,  where  the  hand  of  time  had  long  since  an- 
nihilated the  vast  fleets  of  1814,  and  for  Lake  Erie,  which  had 
been  consecrated  by  the  "gallant  and  immortal  Perry,"  he 
favored  measures  for  "defense  and  protection."  Mr.  Wood- 
bridge,  fearing  that  the  amendment  for  armed  steamers 
would  endanger  the  whole  bill  and  prevent  Detroit  from 
securing  defensive  works,  made  an  unsuccessful  attempt  to 
have  the  amendment  reconsidered.  i\Ir.  Wright  thought 
there  could  be  no  objection  to  the  amendment  except  that  it 
should  go  further  and  provide  for  arming  the  vessels  of  all 
the  lakes  in  case  the  contingent  necessity  should  arise.  Mr. 
Woodbury  said  that  "a  single  new  war  steamer  need  not  be 
erected  on  the  northern  lakes  under  the  appropriation,"  but 
that  "armament,"  cannon,  etc.,  could  be  .olU  1  cd  at  the  prin- 
cipal lake  cities,  and  in  case  of  an  expccicil  incursion  they 
could  be  placed  on  board  the  commercial  steamers. 

There  was  some  further  discussion  in  the  Senate  on  Aug- 
ust 28  bearing  upon  the  lake  defenses. 

On  September  9  the  fortification  bill,  with  Mr.  Allen's 
amendment  regarding  lake  vessels,  became  a  law." 

As  the  time  for  McLeod's  trial  drew  near  there  was  much 
disquietude  along  the  lake  border  of  New  York.'  Especially 


'Congressional  Globe,  27-1,  Vol.  10,  p.  327. 
■'U.  S.  Stat.,  Vol.  5,  p.  460. 
^.Miscellaneous  Letters,  Sept.,  1841. 


Canadian  Rebellion  and  Boundayy  Questions.       116 

durinp^  the  latter  half  of  the  month  of  September  the  rela- 
tions with  Canada  became  a  subject  of  intense  solicitude, 
which  needed  to  be  manap^cd  with  the  jijreatest  prudence. 
With  the  news  that  Canadians  were  building  strong  vessels 
on  the  lakes  also  came  reports  that  a  strong  secret  organiza- 
tion on  the  American  side  of  the  lakes  was  contemplating  to 
disturb  the  peace  with  Great  Britain.  An  attempt  was  made 
to  blow  up  one  of  the  locks  on  the  Welland  canal.  It  was 
also  feared  that  an  attempt  was  being  planned  upon  the  per- 
son of  McLeod  in  case  he  was  acquitted.  Added  to  these 
was  the  rumor  that  popular  discontent  in  Canada  against  the 
existing  government  was  liable  to  lead  to  another  uprising, 
in  which  it  would  be  dililicult  for  the  United  States  to  preserve 
absolute  neutrality. 

Air.  W.  II.  Seward  was  at  that  time  Governor  of  New 
York.  Under  the  circumstances  which  then  existed  he  was 
inclined  to  think  the  government  should  adopt  some  precau- 
tionary means  to  prevent  trouble.  On  September  17,  in  a 
letter  to  Mr.  Webster,  after  referring  to  the  stipulations  of 
the  Agreement  of  1817,  he  said: 

"I  transmit  for  the  information  of  the  President  a  copy  of 
a  communication  from  the  Marshal  of  the  United  States  for  the 
Northern  District,  from  which  itappears  that  Her  British  Maj- 
esty's Government  has  now  at  Chippewa,  on  Lake  Erie,  one 
steamship  of  war  of  500  tons  burden,  named  the  Minos, 
prepared  for  eighteen  guns  and  having  a  pivot  carriage  on 
deck  ready  to  mount  a  68-pounder,  calculated  to  be  manned 
with  75  men,  and  already  furnished  with  a  full  complement 
of  muskets,  hatchets,  boarding-picks,  cutlasses,  etc.  It  ap- 
pears also  by  the  same  communication,  that  the  British  Gov- 
ernment has  another  steamship  of  war  named  the  Toronto, 
lying  in  the  same  port,  of  equal  tonnage  and  capacity  for 
war, 

"Under  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  it  seems  my  duty  to 
inquire  whether  the  President  has  received  notice  of  a  desire 
on  the  part  of  the  British  Government  to  annul  the  stipula- 
tion to  which  I  have  referred.    The  preparations  of  that  cfov- 


•■,t:''     ' 


p 


ill 


1^1 


I!  :V 


116 


Neulralitv  of  the  American  Lakes. 


ernnicnt  show  very  fully  that  it  is  not  its  real  purpose  to  con- 
tinue the  stipulation.  While  I  by  no  means  relitu|uish  the 
hope  that  the  peace  between  the  two  countries  juay  be  main- 
tained, I  bej;  leave  to  sufjj^est  most  res])ectfully  to  the  Tresi- 
dent  the  in(|uiry  whether  an  armament  of  at  least  correspond- 
ing power  with  that  which  I  have  described  ouj,dit  not  to  be 
provided  for  the  defense  of  the  northern  frontier  of  the  State. 

"I  am  moved  to  make  this  comnumicatio'n  not  only  bv  the 
conviction  that  our  northern  frf)ntier  on^ht  not  to  be  ex- 
posed, but  by  an  inquietude  on  the  subject  which  prevails 
among  the  people  in  the  towns  situated  upon  the  lakes.  That 
inquietude  seems  neither  unnatural  nor  unreasonable  when 
the  present  condit'on  and  circumstances  of  our  northern 
frontier  are  duly  considered." 

On  the  same  day,  Hon.  Seth  C.  Ilawley,  of  Buffalo,  and  a 
member  of  the  New  York  Assembly,  who  was  making  efforts 
to  get  information  concerning  Canadian  operations,  wrote 
Governor  Seward  as  follows: 

"T  am  advised  by  a  private  confidential  letter  that  these 
steamers  sail  to-day  or  to-morrow  upon  the  lake,  and  it  is  sup- 
posed that  they  are  to  take  position  opposite — say  at  Fort 
Erie,  by  the  27th  inst.  .  .  .  (Irowing  opinion  that  wc  are  in 
danger  of  a  sudden  blow  from  Canada  .  .  .  People  arc  be- 
coming alarmed,  particularly  in  regard  to  these  steamboats 
which  now  menace  us  .  .  .  if  left  to  our  defenceless  condi- 
tion. Would  be  well  to  have  ammunition  sent  us  ,  .  .  to  be 
dejjosited  for  safe  keeping.'" 

On  September  21  Mr.  Seward  wrote  Air.  Webster  that  the 
report  of  a  confidential  agent  whom  he  had  "appointed  to 
traverse  the  western  country,  together  with  a  conversation 
which  he  had  the  day  before  with  General  Scott  led  him  to 
believe  that  there  was  along  the  southern  shores  of  the  lakes 
an  organization  of  secret  societies,  whose  purpose  was  to  aid 
a  revolution  in  Canada."  It  appeared  that  these  societies  h;id 
been  collecting  powder  and  small  cannon  to  use  in  their 
designs. 

'  Miscellaneous  Letters.  (Enclosure  in  Seward's  letter  to  Webster, 
on  Sept.  24.) 


H* 


Canadian  Rebellion  and  Boundary  Questions.       117 


Beneath  the  large  amount  of  report  which  Mr.  Ilawley  and 
others  were  communicating  to  him,  Mr.  Seward  saw  danger 
hirking.  It  seemed  to  him  that  we  were  treading  ujjon  half- 
smothered  embers,  which  were  ready  to  burst  forth  into  a 
dangerous  flame.  Hardly  had  his  letter  been  sent  to  Mr. 
Seward  on  the  21st,  when  he  received  information  that  an 
attempt  had  been  made  to  blow  up  the  locks  on  the  Welland 
canal,  at  Allanburg,  Canada.  He  had  also  seen  the  state- 
ment in  the  Buffalo  Commercial  Advertiser  that  the  two 
British  steamships,  the  Minos  and  the  Toronto,  had  been 
fired  upon  at  Navy  Island  by  persons  who  had  taken  a 
field  piece  from  the  American  side  of  the  river  for  that  ])ur- 
pose.  On  September  23  Mr.  Seward  received  information 
from  Mr.  H.  J.  Stowe,  Recorder  of  Buffalo,  and  from  Mr. 
Ilawley,  which  confirmed  his  belief  as  to  the  excited  state  of 
the  public  feeling  in  certain  quarters.  lie  did  not  doubt  that 
there  was  still  in  Canada  a  strong  discontent,  which  might 
lead  to  efforts  against  the  government,  and  he  thought  that 
there  were  still  many  along  the  counties  next  to  the  lakes 
who  would  favor  such  a  movement.  In  his  letter  to  Mr.  Web- 
ster on  September  22,  after  referring  again  to  the  substance 
of  his  previous  letters,  Mr.  Seward  said:  "If  it  be  admitted, 
as  I  presume  to  be  the  case,  that  the  immense  military  and 
naval  preparations  made  in  Canada,  have  for  their  object  the 
suppression  of  internal  commotions  and  the  preservation  of 
tranquillity,  it  is  equally  manifest  that  those  preparations  car- 
ried on  in  full  view  of  the  American  shore  are  regarded  by 
many  of  our  citizens  as  having  for  their  design  some  aggres- 
sion against  this  country."  He  stated  that  under  existing 
laws,  neutrality  could  hardly  be  maintained  in  case  of  a  civil 
war  in  Canada,  and  for  this  reason  he  thought  the  United 
States  Government  should  adopt  means  of  defense  without 
delay.  He  favored  the  plans  recently  laid  before  ^he  Presi- 
dent (so  General  Scott  informed  him)  which  "contemplated 
the  purchase  and  fitting  up  of  four  steamboats  on  Lake  Erie, 
of  two  on  Lake  Champlain,  and  of  the  completion  as  a 
steamer  of  the  large  ship  of  war  now  on  the  stocks  at 
Sackett's  Harbor." 


m 


U  ■{} 


■  > 'tiS 


Tm 


118 


Neutrality  of  the  American  Lakes. 


Seward's  letter  induced  Mr.  Webster  to  make  inquiry  of 
the  Secretary  of  Navy  concerning  ordnance  stores  on  lakes 
Erie  and  Ontario.*  Mr.  Simnis  replied  on  September  23  that 
there  was  neither  cannon  nor  ordnance  of  any  kind  on  either 
of  these  lakes  belonging  to  the  navy,  but  that  cannon  and 
other  implements  of  war  could  be  sent  from  the  navy  yard 
near  New  York  by  canal  to  Buflfalo,  on  Lake  Erie,  and  also 
to  Oswego,  on  Lake  Ontario. 

On  the  same  day  the  news  reached  Washington  of  the  at- 
tempt upon  the  British  steamers  by  the  discharge  of  artillery 
from  Navy  Island.'  Mr.  Webster  took  immediate  steps  to 
prevent  any  further  breach.  He  told  General  Scott  that  such 
attempts  must  be  suppressed.'  To  Governor  Seward  he 
wrote:  "If  we  cannot  repress  these  lawless  acts,  we  shall  ere 
long  be  engaged  in  an  inglorious  border  warfare,  of  incur- 
sions and  violations,  ending  in  general  hostilities."  On  Sep- 
tember 24  he  wrote  United  States  District  Attorney  T-  A. 
Spencer  to  get  the  truth,  find  the  authors  of  the  outrages  and 
prosecute.  On  September  25,  in  order  to  lessen  the  dangers 
of  border  collision.  President  Tyler  issued  a  proclamation  in 
opposition  to  organizations  against  Canada.* 

At  this  time  Mr.  Webster  wrote  to  Mr.  Fox  in  regard  to 
the  new  British  vessels  in  the  Niagara  river,  of  which  Mr. 
Seward  had  furnished  him  a  description,  in  order  that  there 
might  be  a  clear  understanding  as  to  the  attitude  of  the  Brit- 
ish authorities"  toward  the  stipulations  of  the  Agreement  of 
1817.  He  mentioned  the  note  which  Mr.  Fox  wrote  to  Mr. 
Forsyth  on  November  25,  1838,  and  said  that  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  did  "not  allow  itself  to  doubt"  that 
the  increase  in  armaments  was  for  purely  defensive  pur- 
poses, to  guard  against  hostilities  like  those  of  1838,  but  he 
desired  to  be  assured  that  "these  vessels  of  war,  if,  unhappily,. 


'  Miscellaneous  Letters. 

Mkiffalo  Commercial  Advertiser  and  Journal,  Sept.  18. 

^  Domestic  Letters,  Vol.  32. 

*  Buffalo  Commercial  Advertiser  and  Journal,  Sept.  29. 

*  Notes  from  State  Dept.,  Vol.  6,  p.  219. 


Canadian  RcbcUioii  and  Do7indary  Qiiestions.       119 


it  shall  be  found  necessary  to  use  them  at  all,  will  be  confined 
to  the  sole  and  precise  purpose  of  guarding  Her  Majesty's 
provinces  against  hostile  attacks." 

At  this  time  the  President  had  not  directed  the  construc- 
tion of  steamers  for  the  defense  of  the  lakes  as  provided  by 
the  Act  of  September  9,  though  there  is  little  doubt  that  Eng- 
land and  the  United  States  were  nearer  to  a  war  than  they 
had  been  for  twenty-five  years.  Disorder  had  been  pacified 
only  by  prudent  diplomacy  and  by  good  fortune. 

It  was  felt  that  in  case  McLeod  was  convicted  in  the  New 
York  courts  "it  might  bring  on  a  catastrophe,'"  while  even 
his  acquittal  would  not  remove  all  "grounds  of  apprehension 
and  alarm."  Luckily,  it  was  clearly  shown  at  the  trial  that  he 
was  a  mere  braggart,  and  had  not  even  been  present  when 
Durfee  was  killed.  Governor  Seward  felt  relieved  when  he 
was  released  (October  12)  and  taken  to  Canada  in  safetv. 

His  acquittal  ended  one  source  of  international  embarrass- 
ment, and  smoothed  the  way  for  the  friendly  conferences  be- 
tween V  ebster  and  Ashburton,  which  were  opened  at  Wash- 
ington a  few  months  later,  when  the  wisdom  of  diplomacy 
was  successfully  exerted  to  prevent  two  greaf  nations  from 
breaking  the  peace  of  the  world.  Neither  country  desired  a 
war  for  national  aggrandizement.  What  each  did  want  was 
to  be  let  alone  so  far  as  anything  savoring  of  aggressiveness 
was  concerned.  There  was  a  war  party  on  both  sides  of  the 
lakes  ready  to  fan  the  flame  of  discord,  but  the  government 
of  each  country  desired  to  preserve  peace. 

October  brought  a  decrease  in  the  temperature  of  the  Sep- 
tember fever,  and  there  was  a  stronger  probability  that  the 
people  along  the  borders  of  Maine  and  New  Brunswick 
would  keep  their  hands  oflf  of  each  other,  and  also  that  the 
invasion  of  United  States  territory  at  Schlosser  might  be  sat- 
isfactorily settled. 

But  the  British  vessels  were  still  on  the  lakes,  and  it  was 
feared  that  they  might  prove  a  source  of  greater  misunder- 
standing and  trouble  in  the  future.'    In  a  conversation  with 

'  Miscellaneous  Letters.     Seward  to  Webster. 

-  BufTalo  Commercial  Advertiser  and  Jomml,  Oct.  i. 


'■<   'I 


E-WI 


■'n 


1  •*! 

;:i 


I 


mi 


ii 


i 


I 


■  ■  I 


ill  II 


120 


Neutrality  of  the  Afnerican  Lakes. 


Mr.  Webster,  in  the  latter  part  of  September,  it  appears  that 
Mr.  Fox  explained  that  his  statement  of  November,  1838,  in 
regard  to  the  necessity  of  increasing  the  British  force  on  the 
lakes,  was  also  applicable  to  existing  circumstances.    But  he 
gave  no  written  reply  to  Mr.  Webster's  communication  of 
September  25.    On  November  29,  Mr.  Webster  again  called 
the  attention  of  Mr.  Fox  to  the  two  steam  vessels  of  war  at 
Chippewa,'  and  said  that  the  purposes  of  the  disarmament  of 
1817 — to  prevent  the  expense  of  rival  fleets,  to  remove  causes 
of  jealousy  and  apprehension,  and  to  place  each  party  on  an 
equal  footing — could  not  be  accomplished  except  by  a  "rigid 
compliance  with  the  terms  of  the  convention  by  both  par- 
ties."   He  said  that  "the  convention  interdicted  the  building, 
as  well  as  the  equipment,  of  vessels  of  war,  beyond  the  fixed 
limit.    The  United  States  have  not  been  disposed  to  make 
complaint  of  the  temporary  deviation  from  this  agreement  by 
the  British  Government  in  1838,  under  what  was  supposed 
to  be  a  case  of  clear  and  urgent  necessity  for  present  self-de- 
fence.    But  it  cannot  be  expected  that  either  party  should 
acquiesce  in  the  preparation  by  the  other  of  naval  means 
beyond  the  limit  fixed  in  the  stipulation,  and  which  are  of  a 
nature  fitting  them  for  offensive  as  well  as  defensive  use, 
upon  the  ground  of  a  vague  and  indefinite  apprehension  of 
future  danger."    Mr.  Webster  did  not  doubt  that  Mr.  Fox 
would  see  the  importance  as  well  as  the  delicacy  of  this  sub- 
ject, and  he  concluded  his  note  by  saying  that  "the  United 
States  cannot  consent  to  any  inequality  in  regard  to  the 
strictness  with  which  the  convention  of  1817  is  to  lie  ob- 
served by  the  parties,  whether  with  respect  to  the  amount  of 
naval  force,  or  the  time  of  its  preparation  or  equipment.  The 
reasons  for  this  are  obvious  and  must  immediately  force 
themselves  upon  Mr.  Fox's  consideration." 

Mr.  Fox  replied  promptly  (November  30)  that  it  was  well 
known  that  Canadian  provinces  were  still  "threatened  with 
hostile  incursion  by  combinations  of  armed  men,  unlawfully 


6  Notes  from  State  Department. 


Canadian  Rebellion  and  Boundary  Questions.      121 

organized  and  prepared  for  war,  within  the  frontier  of  the 
United  States;  and  it  being  found  by  experience,  that  the 
cfiforts  of  the  United  States  Government,  though  directed  in 
good  faith  to  suppress  those  unlaw^ful  combinations,  are  not 
attended  with  the  wished-for  suc:ess."'  he  thought  the  ves- 
sels which  were  serving  upon  the  lakes  were  necessary  to 
guard  the  provinces  against  hostile  attack,  and  he  gave  the 
assurance  that  this  was  the  only  purpose  for  which  they  were 
equipped.  Probably  in  view  of  the  fact  that  Air.  Webster, 
in  his  note  of  September  25,  had  remarked  that  he  did  not 
understand  Mr.  Fox's  note  of  November,  1838,  to  be  a  notice 
of  the  intention  of  the  British  Government  "to  abandon  the 
arrangement  of  1817,"  Mr.  Fox  stated  that  he  would  show 
Mr.  Webster's  communication  to  the  home  government 
"with  the  view  of  learning  the  pleasure  of  Her  Majesty's 
Government  in  regard  to  the  continuance  or  annulment, 
after  due  notice,  of  the  Convention  of  1817." 

The  later  reduction  of  the  British  force  on  the  lakes,  after 
the  fear  of  insecurity  along  the  frontier  had  ceased,  shows 
that  Great  Britain  desired  to  continue  the  agreement;  but  as 
late  as  1842  the  London  Government  still  thought  it  neces- 
sary to  retain  some  force  in  that  quarter.  In  a  dispatch  of  the 
Foreign  Ofifice  to  Mr.  Fox,  dated  March  31,  1842,  it  is  stated 
that  "Her  Majesty's  Government  is  at  all  times  anxious  to 
fulfill  scrupulously"  all  engagements  with  the  United  States, 
and  that  nothing  but  absolute  necessity  would  cause  a  de- 
parture from  this  principle.  The  dispatch  alluded  to  the  state 
of  affairs  which  had  existed  in  the  vicinity  of  the  lakes — the 
rebellion  in  Canada  and  the  active  support  which  had  been 
given  by  the  border  population  of  the  United  States,  "un- 
aw^ed  by  the  menaces,  and  unrestrained  by  the  efforts"  of  the 
American  Government  to  repress  them,  and  stated  that  these 
conditions  "obviously  justified  an  exception  to  the  strict  exe- 
cution of  the  treaty"  so  far  as  was  necessary  for  the  protec- 
tion of  Canada  from  the  ill-affected  population  along  the 

'  No.  20  Notes  to  State  Department. 


f 

m 

' ' 

m 

II 

1 


ri 


!§ 


•■     ''i 


i  ll 


Ml" 


iif: 


iWlli 


122 


Neutrality  of  the  American  Lakes. 


border.  The  continued  inveterate  hostility  of  the  "Patrkiitts"' 
to  the  established  order  of  things  in  Canada,  it  was  claaiULied, 
had  not  justified  an  earlier  reduction  of  British  armarnanifcs 
on  the  lakes,  and  it  was  confidently  expected  that  the  Unn'-eil 
States  Government  would  not  insist  on  a  strict  exerutaoiiD  <off 
the  arrangement  of  1817.  The  dispatch  from  the  Ford^ 
Office  gave  assurance,  however,  that  the  British  Govennjini^anit 
intended  faithfully  to  observe  the  Agreement  of  1817  as  5.00111 
as  it  could  be  done  with  safety  to  Canada,  and  stated  tbat 
"Her  Majesty's  Government  would  have  the  greatest  rdnc- 
tance  to  annul  that  arrangement,"  which  had  proven  a  innKXat 
valuable  security  for  the  preservation  of  the  peace/ 

E  ^843  the  British  force  was  probably  reduced  to  ttlhe 
strict  limit  prescribed  by  the  agreement.  In  answer  to  a  res- 
olution of  the  House,  April  12,  1842,  in  relation  to  pmlnllic 
defenses  for  Lake  Ontario,  General  Scott  reported  i<i  ttlie 
Secretary  of  War,  on  April  16,  that  the  British  had  '"iau'd  tifte 
keel  of  a  war  steamer  of  900  tons  at  Kingston  last  SeptfmSj«er. 
and  had  another  on  the  stocks  at  the  mouth  of  the  Niagaffa," 
and  that  "both  must  be  ready.'"  It  is  possible,  however,  ttBialt 
these  were  never  finished  as  war  vessels,  but  were  used  for 
conmiercial  craft. 

The  feeling  that  the  British  were  increasing  their  foince  oit 
:iie  lakes  led  to  the  consideration  of  the  best  plans  to  mneet 
this  increase.  In  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of  W'a  -,  Dtireim- 
ber  I,  1 84 1,  and  in  various  reports  to  the  War  Departinieinit  ra 
April  and  May  of  1842,  on  November  15,  1841.  T.  O.  JtsAnip, 
Quartermaster,  in  his  report  to  the  War  Depafl.mena.  rec- 
ommended  measures  to  begin  at  once  for  a  "canal  aT'CKSimd 
Niagara  so  vessels  of  war  can  pass."  There  were  alKit  \7m- 
ous  reports  concerning  the  military  importance  of  hartbuoirs. 
Mr.  Spencer, the  Secretary  of  War,  thought  that  "nai-al  fiwces 
on  the  lakes  afford  our  chief  reliance  for  defence  and  offentts*-" 

The  United  States  owned  a  revenue  cutter  on  Lake  Eiiie_ 


'  Foreign  Office  Correspondence,  London. 
^  Exec.  Doc.  No.  225,  27-2,  Vol.  4. 


•r' 


Canadian  Rebellion  and  Boundary  Questions.       123 

but  she  owned  no  vessel  on  Lake  Ontario.  During  the  years 
1838,  1839-40  she  had  paid  a  large  sum  for  the  use  of  the 
steamers  Oneida  and  Telegraph  on  that  lake/  and  this 
led  Congress  in  the  spring  of  1842  to  consider  the  advisability 
of  owning  a  steamer.  The  great  ship  of  the  line,  Neiv  Or- 
leans, which  had  been  begun  in  18 14.  was  still  in  the  ship- 
house  at  Sackett's  Harbor,  and  inquiry  was  made  to  find 
whether  it  would  be  worth  finishing,  but  part  of  it  was  found 
to  be  too  much  affected  by  the  "dry  rot.'"  No  appropriation 
was  made  for  a  vessel  upon  Lake  Ontario. 

It  was  decided  by  the  President  in  the  autumn  of  184 1  that 
one  or  more  steamers  should  be  constructed  under  the  Act 
of  September  9  of  that  year  for  the  defense  of  the  northwest- 
ern lakes.  vSecretary  of  the  Xavy  Upshur  was  given  direc- 
tions to  this  effect,  and  he  concluded  that  the  appropriations 
would  not  be  enough  for  more  than  one  steamer.  On  No- 
vember 2y  he  requested  Commander  L.  Warrington,  Presi- 
dent of  the  Navy  Board,  to  "take  the  necessary  measures  for 
the  construction  of  one  steamer  of  defense  on  Lake  Erie.''" 
Mr.  Warrington  did  not  advertise  for  bids,  but,  acting  for  the 
Commissioners  of  the  Navy,  he  began  to  correspond  in  order 
"to  get  information  as  to  plans,  etc."  On  April  20,  in  re- 
sponse to  a  resolution  of  April  12,  Mr.  Upshur  informed  the 
Speaker  of  the  House  that  they  hoped  "to  enter  contract  in 
a  few  days  for  all  parts  of  the  iron  vessel.'" 

On  May  20  the  House  considered  and  passed  a  resolution 
of  Mr.  Pendleton,  of  Ohio,  requesting  the  Secretary  of  the 
Navy  to  furnish  correspondence  relative  to  the  construction 
of  the  lake  steamer,  and  to  state  whether  bids  had  been  in- 
vited/ Mr.  Pendleton  had  desired  to  put  in  proposals  for 
some  of  his  constituents,  and  was  not  pleased  that  contracts 
had  been  made  without  advertisement.    On  June  3,  Mr.  Up- 

'  Exec.  Doc.  227,  27-2,  May,  1842. 

''  Exec.  Doc.  225,  27-2,  Vol.  4.     Upshur  to  Spencer. 

^  No.  22  Notes  to  State  Department. 

*  Exec.  Doc.  199,  27-2,  Vol.  4. 

^  Congressional  Globe,  27-2,  Vol.  4. 


'  »*?s 


■I 


#1 


124 


Nculralily  of  the  American  Lakes. 


\U\ 


\ 


■   ! 


shur,  in  reply  to  this  resolution,  stated  that  he  did  not  think 
it  necessary  to  advertise  for  bids.  He  went  on  to  say:  "Still 
less  was  it  necessary  to  advertise  for  proposals  as  to  the  place 
where  the  vessel  should  be  built.  Discretion  of  the  depart- 
ment should  have  been  left  uncontrolled  here.  In  exercise 
of  that  discretion  it  seemed  to  be  that  the  seaboard  was  out 
of  the  question;  and  I  did  not  consider  it  wise  in  the  then  con- 
dition of  our  relations  with  England,  to  begin  such  a  work 
on  the  borders  of  a  lake  conunanrled  by  her  naval  power. 
Choice  seemed  to  me  to  be  between  Cincinnati  and  Pittsburg. 
The  latter  seemed  to  have  the  best  material,  equal  skill,  and 
indeed  its  means  and  facilities  were  greater  than  those  of  any 
other  place,  not  too  remote  from  Lake  Erie,  and  possessing 
a  connnunication  with  it  by  water;  hence  Pittsburg  was  se- 
lected. It  was  supposed  to  be  unnecessary  to  advertise  in 
newspapers  for  proposals  .  .  .  .'" 

The  war  scare  appears  to  have  collapsed  by  the  time  this 
war  vessel  was  commenced  at  Pittsburg.  The  representa- 
tives of  the  lake  region  in  Congress  talked  of  the  needs  of 
inland  conmierce  instead  of  lake  defenses.  I\Ir.  Mason,  of 
Ohio,  on  May  i8,  1842,  said  in  the  House,  while  advocating 
a  still  greater  reduction  than  had  already  been  made  from  the 
estimates  of  1841  on  the  Naval  Appropriation  bill,  that  he 
saw  no  sign  of  approaching  war,  and  that  improvement  on 
lake  harbors  for  commerce  was  of  greater  value  than  any  hot- 
house creation  of  a  navy.  "It  was  the  easiest  thing  in  the 
world  to  create  a  war  panic.  He  had  witnessed  the  rise,  prog- 
ress and  termination  of  so  many  such  panics  since  he  had 
been  a  member  of  that  body,  that  he  had  ceased  to  be  agitated 
by  the  alarm,  felt  or  feigned,  on  such  occasions  by  others."' 
Mr.  Mason  said  that  all  points  in  controversy  with  foreign 
governments  were  in  process  of  amicable  adjustment  at  that 
time. 

The  new  vessel  commenced  at  Pittsburg  in  1842  was  a 
side-wheel   iron   steamer,   and   was   named   the   Michigan. 

'  Exec.  Doc.  238,  27-2,  Vol.  4. 

''  Coiiijressional  Globe,  27-2,  Ai)peiulix. 


:  '  •  II 


Canadian  Rebellion  and  Boundary  Questions.      125 

She  was  not  removed  to  Erie  and  placed  upon  the  lake  till 

1843,  when  she  was  taken  across  the  country  in  sections. 
From  that  day  to  this  she  has  been  the  only  naval  vessel 
owned  by  the  United  States  upon  the  lakes.  At  the  time  of 
her  completion  she  was  "of  498  tons  burden  with  an  arma- 
ment of  2  eight-inch  Paixhan  guns,  and  4  thirty-two  pounder 
carronades."  This  was  in  excess  of  the  stipulations  of  the 
Agreement  of  181 7  both  as  to  tonnage  and  as  to  armament, 
but  there  is  nothing  on  record  to  show  the  United  States 
authorities  intended  to  violate  that  agreement.  There  had 
been  great  changes  since  181 7  in  the  size  and  character  of 
vessels.  Steam  had  largely  taken  the  place  of  sail-power, 
and,  as  Secretary  Mason,  of  the  Xavy,  said  in  1844,  "no  ef- 
fective steamer  for  any  purpose"  was  built  of  so  small  size  as 
one  hundred  tons.  In  1841  some  of  the  British  naval  vessels 
on  the  lakes  were  reported  to  be  over  four  hundred  tons  bur- 
den. 

Not  long  after  the  Michigan  was  put  together  at  Erie  a 
report  of  it  reached  the  British  CJoverimient.'     On  July  23, 

1844,  Mr.  Pakenham,  the  British  minister  at  Washington, 
informed  Secretary  of  State  Calhoun  as  follows: 

"It  has  been  represented  to  Her  Majesty's  Government  that 
the  naval  force  of  the  United  States  on  the  Lakes  Ontario,  Erie, 
andHuron,atthismomentconsiderablyexceeds  that  to  which 
Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  reciprocally  restricted 
themselves  by  the  agreement  entered  into  in  April,  1817.  It  is 
true  that  not  long  ago  while  Her  Majesty's  Canadian  do- 
minions were,  threatened  with  invasion  from  parties  unlaw- 
fully organized  within  United  States,  Great  Britain  did  main- 
tain, in  her  own  defence,  a  naval  force  exceeding  the  amount 
stipulated  in  the  agreement,  but  explanation  was  given  of  the 
necessity  of  that  departure  from  the  existing  engagement 


in   !l 


'-'■   n 


'  Despatch  from  P'oreiRii  Otlice  to  Hritisli  Legation  at  Wasliington, 
June  3,  1844.  Mr.  Packcnliam.  the  British  Minister,  was  directed  to 
say  tliat  au};nientation  of  forces  by  tlie  United  States  was  unnecessary, 
that  the  British  Goverinnent  proposed  toadliere  strictly  totlie  Agree- 
ment of  1S17,  and  that  it  nuist  claim  the  right  of  ecjualily  in  the 
matter. 


i'xi 


VA 


*  *"*» 


126 


Neutrality  of  the  American  Lakes. 


f  "j:  li 


which  appeared  to  satisfy  the  government  of  the  United 
States,  and  when  a  change  in  the  attitude  and  disposition  of 
the  people  on  the  frontier  was  sufficiently  evident  to  enable 
the  British  Government  to  feel  security  against  aggression, 
the  British  force  was  reduced  to  the  limit  prescribed  by  the 
Agreement  of  1817.  At  the  present  moment,  there  are  hap- 
pily no  circumstances  on  either  side  to  justify  or  require  any 
departure  from  the  strict  fulfillment  of  that  agreement,  and  it 
therefore  becomes  by  all  means  desirable  that  it  should  be 
fulfilled  to  the  letter  by  both  the  contracting  parties. 

"In  addition  ...  I  have  observed  in  the  newspapers  of 
this  country  an  advertisement  stating  that  proposals  would 
be  received  at  the  Bureau  of  Ordnance  for  the  supply  of  a 
quantity  of  cannon,  shot,  and  shells,  for  the  United  States, 
of  which  a  proportion  including  a  number  of  32-pounder 
chambered  guns  is  to  be  delivered  at  certain  places  on  the 
lakes — whereas  by  the  agreement  of  18 17  it  is  provided  that 
the  armament  to  be  used  on  board  the  vessels  of  the  limited 
tonnage  allowed  by  the  same  agreement  shall  be  18-pound 
cannon. 

"This  circumstance,  I  am  sure,  will  appear  to  you,  sir,  still 
further  to  justify  the  desire  of  Her  Majesty's  Government  to 
receive  satisfactory  explanations  as  to  intentions  of  United 
States  Government  with  reference  to  the  fulfillment  of  the 
Agreement  of  1817.'" 

This  communication  was  promptly  referred  to  Secretary 
J.  Y.  Mason,  of  the  Navy,  who  at  once  took  steps  to  ascertain 
whether  the  British  Government  had  any  iron  steamers  upon 
the  lakes.  He  also  ordered  the  commander  of  the  Michi- 
gan not  to  leave  the  port  of  Erie  on  a  cruise  until  he  should 
receive  further  orders,  for  while  he  was  "not  aware  that  the 
United  States  naval  forces  on  Lakes  Ontario  and  Huron  ex- 
ceeded that  of  the  Agreement  of  1817,  he  knew  that  under  a 
strict  construction  of  that  agreement  the  Michigan  at  Erie 
would  not  be  allowed.'" 


'  Xo.  22  Notes  to  State  Department. 
■=  Miscellaneous  Letters,  Sept.  4,  1844. 


w 


Canadian  Rebcllioji  and  Boundary  Questions.       127 


-  I 


In  August,  Secretary  Mason,  in  response  to  his  inquiries, 
received  information  whicli  he  thought  gave  him  some  rea- 
sons to  beHeve  that  the  British  still  had  "in  commission  on 
the  northwestern  lakes  a  larger  force,  both  in  number  and 
tonnage,  than  that  authorized  by  the  agreement."  On  Aug- 
ust 17,  Passed  Midshipman  Dillaplain  R.  Lambert  had  writ- 
ten him  from  Rochester,  N.  Y.,  as  follows:  "I  went  to  Kings- 
ton (U.  C.)  as  a  citizen  to  learn  facts.  I  find  at  Kingston 
they  have  a  steamer  Cherokee  of  about  600  tons  already 
launched,  machinery  on  board,  and  can  be  fitted  for  service 
in  about  twelve  days — and  can  mount  from  16  to  24  guns — 
built  of  wood.  I  learned  that  they  have  an  iron  steamer 
Moha-cK.'k  at  Toronto  in  commission,  and  commanded  by 
Commodore  Fowell,  R.  N.,  and  can  mount  from  4  to  6  guns. 
They  also  have  a  schooner  called  Montreal  commanded  by 
St.  Tyson,  R.  N.,  cruising — all  the  above  on  Lake  Ontario. 
On  the  upper  lakes  they  have  two  vessels — the  Minos,  an 
iron  steamer,  and  the  schooner  Experiment,  both  com- 
manded by  officers  of  the  royal  navy."  On  August  25,  Lieu- 
tenant F.  N.  Parmelee  had  written  a  letter  to  the  President 
from  Lake  Huron,  in  which  he  said:  "I  learn  that  the  British 
Government  has  a  powerful  steamer,  with  her  armament 
taken  out  at  a  small  naval  depot  on  the  northern  shore  of  the 
lake  whither  I  am  now  going.  The  name  of  the  place  is 
Penetauguashia,  an  Indian  name.  We  have  no  commerce 
with  the  port.  There  is  a  fine  harbor  there — the  best,  I  un- 
derstand, on  all  the  lakes.  It  is  said  there  are  two  steamers 
there  belonging  to  the  government,  but  one  I  am  certain  of. 
Shall  write  again  when  I  learn  facts.  There  can  be  no  doubt, 
I  think,  that  the  British  Government  is  perpetually  violating 
the  spirit  of  the  Treaty." 

Both  of  these  reports  appear  to  be  based  largely  tipon 
rumor.  If  any  complete  investigation  was  made  to  get  more 
reliable  information  no  report  of  it  is  found.  On  September 
4,  Mr.  Mason  enclosed  these  two  reports  in  his  reply  to  Mr. 
Calhoun,  and  stated  that  the  vessels  mentioned  in  Lambert's 
letter  and  commanded  by  ofificers  of  the  royal  navy  were 


■  •I  il 


I' 


l^^;-! 


V'^r^ 


<!i 


'  'S 


/''■''"a 


128 


Neutrality  of  the  American  Lakes. 


\'- 


found  "on  the  list  of  the  royal  navy,  puhlishcd  by  authority 
of  the  Admiralty,  though  they  api)cared  Ijy  the  list  to  mount 
only  one  gun  each."  If  the  reports  were  true,  however,  there 
was  still  a  violation  of  the  strict  letter  of  the  agreement  as  to 
tonnage  and  number  of  vessels.  Secretary  Mason  suggested 
that  the  changes  from  sail  to  steam  vessels  since  1817  "would 
justify  a  revision  of  the  agreement"  in  regard  to  the  tonnage 
of  vessels,  and  stated  that  "if  it-is  considered  that  the  British 
vessels  are  not  inconsistent  with  the  agreement,  by  reason  of 
the  armament  being  limited  to  one  gun  each,  the  armament 
of  the  steamer  Michigan  can  be  readily  reduced  to  that 
number." 

In  regard  to  the  advertisement  which  Mr.  Pakenham  had 
seen  in  the  newspapers.  Secretary  Mason  mav  be  quoted  in 
full: 

"The  advertisement  .  .  .  has  been  made  by  liureau  of 
Ordnance  and  Hydrography  by  my  direction,  in  pursuance 
of  a  policy,  adopted  for  many  years,  and  in  execution  of  laws 
of  Congress.  That  policy  has  been  gradually  to  collect  ma- 
terial, ordnance,  and  munitions,  on  our  entire  seaboard  and 
lake  frontier.  Contemplated  purchases  of  present  year  do  not 
exceed  proportion  to  which  northern  frontier  is  entitled,  in 
pursuance  of  system  adopted;  and  the  measures  taken  have 
had  no  reference  to  any  anticipated  disturbances  with  (Ireat 
Britain.  How  far  that  government,  in  its  wise  forecast,  has 
made  similar  preparations  for  circumstances  which  may  ren- 
der them  necessary,  I  am  not  advised,  and  have  not  enquired, 
as  agreement  of  1817  does  not  impose  any  restriction  on  such 
supplies.  I  have  no  reason  to  believe  that  the  appropriations 
made  by  Congress  for  cannon  and  munitions  were  influenced 
by  any  considerations  which  threatened  the  peace  which 
happily  subsists  between  Great  Britain  and  United  States. 
The  advertisement  has  been  made  to  execute  in  a  regular 
course  these  laws  of  Congress." 

On  September  5,  1844,  Secretary  Calhoun  transmitted  to 
Mr.  Pakenham  the  letter  of  Secretary  Mason.'     There  is 


'  No.  7  Notes  from  State  Department,  p.  48. 


PI 


Canadian  Rebellion  and  Boundary  Qwstions.       129 


nothing  on  the  records  at  the  State  Department  to  indicate 
that  there  was  any  further  consideration  of  the  subject  at 
that  time,'  and  the  Michigan  was  allowed  to  cruise  upon  the 
upper  lakes. 

The  general  temper  of  the  Peel  ministry,  with  Lord  Aber- 
deen at  the  head  of  foreign  afifairs,  had  been  pacific.  The 
northeast  boundary  question  had  been  settled  by  friendly 
interviews  between  Webster  and  Ashburton.  Various  other 
sources  of  dispute  were  amicably  arranged.  But  Oregon 
became  more  and  more  a  bone  of  contention  as  the  Presiden- 
tial election  of  1844  approached.  "Fifty-four  Forty,  or 
Fight"  was  the  cry  of  those  who  were  enthusiastic  in  their 
ideas  of  the  "manifest  destiny"  of  the  United  States.  Even 
the  schoolboys  wrote  it  on  the  fences.  This  bluster  over  the 
Oregon  question  perhaps  led  to  some  fear  that  the  lakes 
might  again  become  a  sea  of  carnage.  The  Council  of 
Rochester,  N.  Y.,  saw  the  "opposing  shore  of  Lake  Ontario 
bristling  with  active  military  preparations. ' ' '  President  Polk, 
in  reply  to  a  Senate  inquiry,  proclaimed  to  that  body  on 
March  4,  1846,  that  "under  this  aspect  of  our  relations  with 
Great  Britain  I  can  not  doubt  the  propriety  of  increasing  our 
means  of  defence  both  by  land  and  by  sea.'"  But  all  the 
"stage  thunder"  died  away,  the  Oregon  question  was  settled 
without  further  strained  relations,  and  "manifest  destiny" 
became  satisfied  with  a  corner  of  Mexico.  The  new  tariff 
bill  in  the  United  States  also  probably  had  a  tendency  to 
secure  a  friendlier  feeling  from  England. 

The  feeling  along  the  northern  border  now  became  such 
that  rumors  of  war  vessels  ceased,  and  the  mirage  of  danger 
disappeared. 

In  a  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  United  States  Navy, 

March  2,  1846,  it  is  stated  that  of  five  ships  of  the  line  which 


>  The  incidental  sngRestion  of  Secretary  Mason  that  tlie  Agreement 
might  be  revised  probably  called  forth  no  observation  from  the 
British  Government.     (Note  from  Foreign  Office,  April  2,  1897). 

'Senate  Doc.  162,  29-1,  March  10,  1S46. 

■'Senate  Doc.  24S,  29-1,  Vol.  5. 


-  lu 


i 


■.p 


M 


f 

1 

'\ 

1 

. 

1 

'  •■■  li 
I 

■  1 

1 

i(. 

i 

:  1 

130 


JVifulra/i(j   of  the  American  Lakes. 


were  at  that  time  building,  one  was  on  Lake  Ontario,  at 
Sackett's  Harbor.'  This  probably  refers  to  the  ship  New 
Orleans,  which  had  remained  unfinished  since  1814,  for  it 
does  not  appear  that  any  naval  vessel  was  placed  upon  Lake 
Ontario.  The  Nczv  Orleans  finally  ended  its  long,  inac- 
tive career  by  being  sold  for  old  timber  and  kindling  wood, 
though  it  seems  to  have  been  upon  the  navy  list  as  late  ?s 
1862.' 

On  January  27,  1848,  Mr.  Buchanan,  who  was  then  Secre- 
tary of  State,  asked  Mr.  Crampton  to  secure  permission  for 
the  passage  from  the  lakes  through  the  St.  Lawrence  to  the 
Atlantic  ocean  of  the  two  iron  steamers  Dallas  and  Jeffer- 
son, which  had  been  recently  employed  in  the  revenue  ser 
vice  on  Lake  Erie  and  Lake  Ontario,  but  were  no  longer 
needed.  Their  passage  was  granted  and  canal  charges  were 
omitted.  Two  small  schooners  were  taken  from  the  ocean 
to  the  lakes  the  next  November  to  replace  the  iron  steamers 
which  had  been  removed.' ' 

It  was  not  likely  that  the  United  States  Government  w  n\\d 
have  removed  her  iron  revenue  vessels  if  the  British  had  not 
shown  a  disposition  at  that  time  to  abide  by  the  spirit  of  the 
Agreement  of  1817.  In  1850,  when  Mr.  Cobden  was  point- 
ing to  the  Agreement  of  1817  as  a  precedent  for  a  plan  by 
which  England  and  France  could  reduce  their  expensive 
armaments,  he  stated  that  there  was  then  only  "one  crazy 
English  hulk  on  all  the  lakes. "^  In  July,  1852,  Joseph  Smith, 
of  the  United  States  Bureau  of  Yards  and  Docks,  reported 
to  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  that  the  British  Government 
had  ordered  all  its  naval  vessels,  which  had  formerly  been  in 
commission  on  the  lakes,  to  be  dismantled. 

In  1845,  Commodore  Morris  and  Colonel  Totten,  by  order 
of  the  Navy  Department,  made  an  examination  of  the  north- 
ern frontier.    In  1848,  Captain  Breese  did  the  same.    From 

'Senate  Doc.  187,  29-1. 

^  London  Times,  Jan.  7,  1862. 

'  Notes  to  State  Department,  Vol.  25. 

*  Bright  and  Rogers  :  Speeches  of  Cobden. 


Canadian  Rebellion  and  boundary  Questions.      131 


their  reports  it  appears  that  no  clanger  was  apprehended.'  It 
was  found  "unnecessary  and  inexpecHcnt  even  to  procrress 
further  with  the  uncompleted  works  ...  on  the  shores  of 
the  northern  lakes."  In  July,  1851,  Lieut.  M.  F.  Maury,  of 
the  United  States  army,  said  that  the  friendly  feelinjij  in  Can- 
ada made  measures  of  defense  unnecessary.  In  case  it  was 
thought  best  to  provide  against  the  possibility  of  a  naval  sur- 
prise on  the  lakes  he  said:  "Engines  and  armaments  might 
be  placed  upon  lake  shores.  .  .  .  The  frames  of  a  few  small 
men-of-war  sieamers  could  be  gotten  out  at  the  navy  yards 
of  Memphis  and  New  York,  and  on  the  first  appearance  of 
the  war  cloud  could  be  sent  to  lakes  by  the  Erie  and  Michi- 
gan canals,  put  together,  and  be  ready  for  launching  at  a 
moment's  warning.'" 

In  September,  1851,  Commander  R.  B.  Cunningham,  of 
the  United  States  navy,  reported  that  the  changes  since  1812 
would  prevent  the  lakes  from  ever  again  becoming  an  arena 
of  naval  combat,  and  that  the  United  States  needed  no  prepa- 
ration in  that  quarter,'  Captain  Morris,  of  the  navy,  reported 
(July,  1 851)  that  no  danger  from  attack  was  to  be  annre- 
hended  in  that  quarter,  though  the  advantage  of  canals  would 
give  Great  Britain  a  temporary  superiority  of  force  on  Lake 
Ontario  in  case  of  war.  General  Totten  thought  (November, 
185 1)  the  United  States  would  have  a  great  superiority  in 
preparation  upon  the  other  lakes.  In  1852,  when  the  legis- 
lature of  Pennsylvania  passed  resolutions  for  a  navy  yard, 
naval  depot  and  dry  dock  upon  the  lake  frontier,  in  order 
that  the  United  States  might  show  herself  in  time  of  peace 
prepared  for  war,  Secretary  Graham,  of  the  Navy,  stated  to 
the  Naval  Committee  of  the  .Senate  that  he  thougiit  such  a 
measure  unwise  and  unnecessary.*  He  saw  no  reasons  for 
preparations  for  war  till  there  was  a  chance  of  war  in  sight. 

There  was  a  general  feeling  that  "warlike  preparations  on 


'  Senate  Reports  331,  32-1,  Vol.  2,  Aug.  10,  1852. 
^Reports  Com.  86,  37-2,  Vol.  4,  pp.  426  and  514. 
'*  Reports  Com.  86,  37-2,  Vol.  4,  pp.  422  and  434. 
*  Senate  Report  331,  32-1,  Vol.  2. 


m 


■I 


•1 


fl 


132 


r ; 


I  :.! 


I;  ■'■ 


:i 


-■•  ii  ■■ 


'   !      I 


IT 


i  J' 


I  f 


m\i^ 


Neutrality  of  the  American  Lakes. 


either  side  of  llie  lake  shores  in  time  of  peace  would  be  the 
signal  for  similar  or  more  extensive  preparations  on  the 
other."  Joseph  Smith,  of  the  Bureau  of  Yards  and  Docks, 
said  that  in  case  of  any  future  war,  the  United  Slates,  by 
means  of  its  merchant  marine  and  its  railroads,  could  soon 
outstrip  England  in  building  a  lake  navy. 

The  changes  in  economic  conditions  had  made  the  lakes 
the  main  avenue  of  transportatior  for  western  products,  and 
the  minds  of  the  enterprising  people  of  the  lake  region  were 
interested  in  commerce  rather  than  war.  The  importance  of 
the  lakes  as  a  highway  between  Eas;  and  West  was  rapidly 
increasing.'  In  1854  the  United  States  entered  into  a  reci- 
procity treat:  with  England,  by  which  British  subjects  were 
given  the  fre  navigation  of  Take  Michigan  and  free  trade  in 
various  articles.  In  return  for  this,  the  United  States  re- 
ceived more  extended  fishing  privileges  and  "the  right  to 
navigate  the  river  St.  Lawrence  and  the  canalc  in  Canada 
used  as  the  means  of  communication  between  the  great  lakes 
and  the  Atlantic  Ocean  with  their  vessels,  boats,  and  crafts 
as  fully  and  freely  as  the  subjects  of  Her  Britannic  Maj- 
esty. .  .  ."  Thus  the  people  on  each  side  of  the  lakes  were 
attracted  more  and  more  to  the  other,  and  social  and  busi- 
ness relations  softened  the  sharpness  of  border  lines. 

A  further  objection  to  the  Michigan  was  made  by  the 
British  authorities,  however,  in  1857.  A  new  question  in 
regard  to  revenue  vessels  also  arose  in  1857-58.  In  1S56  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  was  authorized  to  sell  at  auction 
the  two  revenue  vessels,  the  Ingham  at  Detroit,  and  the 
Harrison  at  Oswego,  which  had  been  upon  the  lakes  for 

*  Before  1836,  and  in  fact  for  ten  years  later,  the  Mississippi  was  tlie 
main  avenue  of  trade  for  tlie  West,  but  after  1.846-7  tiie  lakes  became 
the  principal  avenue.     (Wis.  Hist.  Cull.,  Vol.  13,  p.  293.     1895). 

Otlicr  economic  clianges,  as  well  as  new  polrticai  conditions,  led  to 
the  projection  of  a  canal  throuj^h  Central  America,  to  shorten  the 
route  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific.  By  the  Clayton-Buhver  treaty 
of  April  19,  i<S5o,  Great  Britain  and  tiie  United  States  agreed  to 
defend  the  complete  neutrality  of  such  canal.  Kach  party  agreed 
not  U)  ac(|uire  or  maintain  exclusive  control  over  any  such  canal,  and 
not  to  acquire  any  colonies  or  territories  adjacent  thereto. 


Canadiaji  Rebellion  and  Boundary  Questions.      133 


several  years,  and  to  have  six  small  50-ton  cutters  built  for 
the  protection  of  the  revenue  of  the  lakes/  While  these  six 
cutters  were  being  built,  and  at  a  time  when  it  seems  that 
the  United  States  had  no  cutters  upon  the  lakes,  the  Gov- 
ernor of  Canada  reported  to  the  home  government  that  "an 
American  vessel,  qualified  as  a  revenue  cruiser,"  of  800  tons 
burden,  and  having  a  68-pound  Paixhan  gun,  was  making 
frequent  excursions  on  the  lakes  from  its  headquarters  in  the 
Detroit  river.  The  Earl  of  Clarendon  drew  the  attention  of 
Mr.  Dallas,  the  American  minister  at  London,  to  the  matter. 
JNlr.  Dallas  stated  that  the  vessel  was  probably  the  Michi- 
i:;aii,  and  was  armed  with  only  an  18-pound  gun.  Mr.  Dal- 
las also  stated  that  the  tonnage  of  the  Michimn  was  in 
excess  of  that  stipulated  by  the  Agreement  of  1817.  This  led 
the  Earl  of  Clarendon  to  direct  Lord  Napier  to  bring  the 
subject  before  Mr.  Cass  at  Washington."  This  Lord  Napier 
did  on  April  8,  1857,  and  suggested  the  "expediency  of  fur- 
ther inquiry,  in  order  that  measures  [might]  be  taken  for  the 
correction  of  any  infringement  of  the  engagements  of  1817 
which  may  have  occurred."  Mr.  Cass  referred  Lord  Napier's 
note  to  the  Navy  and  Treasury  Departments,''  but  i.  they 
made  a  reply  to  Mr.  Cass  it  was  probably  only  verbal.  In  the 
reply  of  Mr.  Cass  to  Lord  Napier  the  contention  seems  to 
have  been  that  the  ship  in  question  Avas  not,  in  fact,  a  vessel 
of  war.* 

The  intimation  in  1857  that  revenue  vessels  were  included 
under  the  Agreement  of  1817  was  followed  in  1858  bv  in- 
quiries from  the  British  Government  in  regard  to  the  "six 
new  armed  revenue  cutters,"  which,  according  to  informa- 
tion received  from  Canada,  Iiad  been  placed  upon  the  lakes, 
and  which  it  was  apprehended  might  "not  square  wath  the 
nuitual  obligations  of  the  two  countries  contained  in  the 
treaty  of  1817."°    Lord  Napier,  on  July  2,  intendii\g  to  leave 


'Act  of  Aug.  18,  1836. 

*  Notes  from  l'"oreign  Ollice. 
'Domestic  Letters,  April  11  and  17. 

*  Correspondence  at  tlie  l'"oreign  Udice. 

^37  Notes  to  State  Department,  July  2,  1858. 


4 


134 


Neutrality  of  the  American  Lakes, 


\  I 


I  i 


\ 


m 


'  ( 

n 

!  : 

-1 

hf 

U 

'    , 

!t 

? 

^'' 

I 

.-a 

j  1  V  ; 

Washington  for  two  weeks,  calling  both  at  the  State  De- 
partment and  at  his  home  to  see  Secretary  Cass,  and  failing  to 
find  him,  wrote  him  a  note,  in  which  he  stated  that  when  he 
next  met  him  it  would  be  his  "duty  to  ask  verbally"  concern- 
ing these  cutters,  and  that  Mr.  Cass  would  much  oblige  him 
"by  inquiring  whether  the  vessels  alluded  to  have  been  built 
and  whether  they  are  destined  for  the  purpose  alleged." 
Lord  Napier  had  returned  by  July  17,  and  soon  after,  nrob- 
ably  July  27,  or  August  9,  he  left  a  memorandum'  with  Mr. 
Cass  in  which  he  asked  whether  vessels  of  war  or  revenue 
vessels  were  about  to  be  placed  on  the  lakes;  if  such  vessels 
were  being  built,  what  was  their  number,  tonnage,  and  arm- 
ament; and  whether  they  were  built  by  any  special  apnro- 
priation  of  Congress.'  It  is  probable  that  Mr.  Cass  answered 
the  questions  verbally,  since  no  formal  written  reply  is  to  be 
found  at  the  Department  of  State.' 

These  inquiries  in  regard  to  cutters  and  the  renewal  of  the 
complaint  in  regard  to  the  character  of  the  Michigan  seem 
to  have  originated  in  the  disputes  of  1856  concerning  the  Cen- 
tral American  canal  and  the  recruiting  in  the  TTni'ted  States 
of  soldiers  for  the  Crimean  War.  There  was  excitement 
when  Mr,  Crampton,  the  British  minister  at  Washinc-ton, 
was  given  his  passports,  but  it  soon  subsided.  The  United 
States  Government  had  been  suspicious  of  the  English  fleet 
in  the  West  Indies,  but  the  British  Government  disavowed 
any  hostile  intention.  By  1858  there  were  no  serious  diffi- 
culties to  adjust,  and  relations  were  the  most  cordial.*  The 
visit  of  the  Prince  of  Wales  to  the  United  States  in  i860  iiidi- 


'  37  Noleb  to  State  Department. 

'  Six  new  revenue  cutters  were  placed  on  the  lakes  about  this  time. 
Five  of  them  were  removed  to  the  Atlantic  at  the  opening  of  the  Civil 
War  in  1S61. 

^  From  tiie  corresjiondeme  of  the  I'oreign  Ofiice  at  London  it 
appears  that  Mr.  Cass  "argued  that  the  vessels  were  very  small,  and 
mounted  no  cannon." 

*  In  1S58  and  1859  there  was  some  correspondence  concerning  tlie 
violation  of  British  jurisdiction,  and  the  encroachment  of  American 
fishermen.     (8  Notes  from  Slate  Department.) 


Canadian  Rebellion  and  Boundary  Questions.       135 


cates  the  friendly  feeling  which  existed.  President  Buchanan 
spoke  of  the  good  effects  of  this  visit,  in  his  message  to  Con- 
gress in  December  of  that  year.  Lord  Lyons  characterized 
this  message  as  having  the  most  cordial  language  of  any  that 
had  ever  appeared. 

But  at  this  very  moment  a  storm  was  upon  the  horizon — 
already  visible  to  some — an  irrepressible  conflict  of  such  pro- 
portions that  it  would  involve  England  and  America  in  seri- 
ous misunderstandings  which  it  would  take  years  to  un- 
tangle. 


I  ;; 


IlII 


'3 


Ili 


f 


i  1 


VI. 

AGITATION  OF  LAKE  DEFENSES  DURING  THE 
AMERICAN   CIVIL   WAR. 


I 


1  '■' 


CONFEDLRATE  OPERATIONS  FrOM   CaNADA, 

Events  growing  out  of  the  Civil  War  several  times  caused 
the  relations  between  England  and  the  United  States  to  be 
strained  almost  to  the  breaking  point.  In  England  lli!<erc 
was  alarm  felt  at  the  vast  armies  and  naval  armaments,  wSakh 
continued  to  grow  as  the  war  progressed.  W'ith  the  Hong' 
Canadian  frontier  unprotected  by  costly  forts  and  fleets,  witli 
a  revived  feeling  that  the  United  States  looked  forward  to  a 
"manifest  destiny"  of  wider  territory,  and  with  thousands  of 
Canadians  joining  the  Union  army/  it  was  not  unnatural  *?iat 
England  should  have  some  fear  of  danger  to  her  Amtn.an 
possessions.  This  feeling  was  strengthened  after  the  Tn-ni 
affair  by  the  statement  in  American  papers  that  Engi^lamd 
would  be  brought  to  a  reckoning  after  the  close  of  the  war. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  was  a  general  feeling  in  ihe 
United  States  that  the  policy  of  the  London  Govemmem  was 
greatly  influenced  by  the  wide  sympathy  for  the  Confedtraies 
which  existed  among  the  aristocracy  and  clergy  of  souiibcrTi 
England,  who  expected  to  sec  recorded  the  death  and  funeral 
of  another  of  the  world's  republics.  English  stattsmem  an- 
nounced that  "the  United  States  has  ceased  to  be."  Th^ 
thought  that  North  and  South  would  never  again  occupv  the 
same  bed  together.    The  Queen  had  early  (May  13,  1861) 


'  Cases  in  regard  to  Britisli  citizens  in  the  United  States  armr 
considereil  almost  every  day  in  the  correspondence  from  iht  State 
Department  to  tlie  Britisli  Legation  at  Washington  during  paxifjdthe 
year  1863.  In  May  and  June,  1864,  it  was  the  principal  sutijedt  erf 
correspondence. 


11 


Agitatioti  of  Lake  Defenses  During  Civil  War.      137 


issued  a  proclamation  of  neutrality,  but  the  Government  of 
Great  Britain,  it  was  said  in  the  United  States,  was  too  fast 
in  recognizing  the  cotton  States  as  belligerents  and  too  slow 
in  preventing  the  English  ports  from  being  made  bases  for 
Confederate  operations  against  the  United  States.  The 
Times  and  other  London  papers  appeared  to  be  subservient 
to  the  Confederate  cause,  and  some  people  were  "persuaded 
tliat  the  Lord  Chancellor  sits  on  a  cotton  bale." 

The  first  note  of  warning  of  the  fitting  out  of  the  Confed- 
erate vessels  in  IJritish  territory  was  given  by  the  Secretary 
of  State,  Air.  Seward,  in  a  private  interview  with  Lord  Lvons 
in  April,  1861.  The  United  States  Government  had  received 
information  that  the  iron  steamer  Peerless  was  in  the  hands 
of  the  enemy  on  her  way  out  of  Lake  Ontario,  and  that 
she  had  iv^gular  British  papers.  Lord  Lyons  did  not  think 
the  information  was  definite  enough  to  justify  him  in  having 
the  vessel  detained.  Mr.  Seward  said  that  the  United  States 
could  not  tolerate  the  fitting  out  of  piratical  vessels  on  the 
St.  Lawrence,  and  stated  that  he  would  direct  the  Peerless 
to  be  seized  by  United  States  forces  if  the  reports  were  true, 
no  matter  what  flag  she  carried.  Lord  Lyons  protested,  but 
Mr.  Seward  gave  conditional  directions  to  the  United  States 
naval  oflficers.' 

Mr.  C.  F.  Adams,  who,  during  the  Civil  War,  was  our  pru- 
dent and  able  minister  at  London,  held  the  pulse  of  the  Eng- 
lish people  and  promptly  recorded  each  variation.  He 
watched  the  rise  and  fall  of  sentiment  in  favor  of  the  South- 
ern Confederacy,  helped  to  avoid  difficulties,  and  finally  by 
his  firmness  and  moderation  secured  greater  English  activity 
in  enforcing  neutrality.  In  June,  Mr.  Adams  wrote  Mr.  Sew- 
ard that  the  British  were  sending  troops  to  protect  Canada 
from  invasion.'  Lord  Russell,  who  was  Secretary  of  State 
for  Foreign  Affairs,  explained  that  they  were  sent  as  "a  mere 
precaution  against  times  of  trouble."     He  said  the  Ameri- 

'  8  Notes  from  tlie  State  Deparinieiit.     Seward  to  Lyons,  May  i, 
1S61. 
'^jDespatclies,  June  14. 


t^^ 


'*\. 
^'-3 


'■\."i 

hi 


.  .'I 


138 


Neutrality  of  the  Atncrican  Lakes. 


cans  "might  do  something"  and  he  thought  it  was  well  to  be 
prepared. 

By  the  Agreement  of  1817  the  naval  force  of  each  party 
upon  the  lakes  had  been  limited  to  four  vessels,  each  of  one 
hundred  tons  burden,  and  with  restricted  armament  and 
duties.  In  1861  no  British  naval  vessels  were  upon  the  lakes, 
nd  there  had  been  none  for  many  years.  The  United  States 
l:ail  inly  one  naval  vessel,  the  Michigan,  which  had  been 
cruising  upon  the  lakes  since  1844.  The  British  Govern- 
ment had,  as  we  have  seen,  already  complained  in  regard  to 
the  size  of  the  Michigan,  and  the  conditions  of  1861  led  to 
another  complaint.  On  August  31.  Lord  Lyons  was  in- 
structed by  the  British  Government  to  represent  to  the 
United  States  Government  that  the  tonnage  of  the  United 
States  naval  force  on  the  lakes  above  Niagara  Falls,  and  es- 
pecially the  armament  of  the  steamer  Michigan  seemed  tc 
be  "in  excess  of  the  limit  stipulated  in  the  arrangement  of 
1817.'"  Mr.  Seward,  in  reply,  stated  that  the  only  naval 
force  of  the  United  States  on  the  upper  lakes  was  the  Michi- 
gan, of  fifty-two  tons,  carrying  one  gun  of  eight  inches,  and 
used  "exclusively  for  purposes  of  recruiting  the  navy,  with 
artillery  practice  for  the  newly  recruited  seamen."  Mr.  Sew- 
ard did  not  consider  that  the  retention  of  the  Michigan 
upon  the  lakes  was  any  violation  of  the  Agreement  of  1817, 
but  expressed  his  willingness  to  consider  any  views  which 
the  British  Government  might  have  to  the  contrary."  There 
is  no  record  at  the  State  Department  to  show  that  any  fur- 
ther objection  to  the  Michigan  was  ever  made.  The  fact  that 
the  United  States  had  no  other  naval  vessel  on  the  lakes 
probably  influenced  the  British  Government  to  allow  a  loose 
construction  of  the  Agreement  of  1817  in  regard  to  the 
size  of  the  Michigan.  The  Nciu  Orleans,  of  seventy-four 
guns,  wliich  had  remained  unfinished  at  Sackett's  Harbor 
since  1814,  seems  to  have  been  reckoned  in  the  navy  list  as 


'  42  Notes  to  State  Departmenl. 
^  No.  9  Notes  from  State  Department. 
Letters,  Sept,  10. 


of 
at 


Also,   see  Miscellaneous 


Agitation  of  Lake  Defenses  During  Civil  War.      139 


an  effective  line-of-battle  ship,  but  there  was  nothing  to  fear 
from  it'  It  seems  that  there  was  only  one  revenue  cutter, 
the  Floyd,  upon  the  lakes  at  this  time.  The  five  others 
which  the  United  States  Government  had  had  there  since 
1858  were  taken  to  the  Atlantic  at  the  outbreak  of  the  war," 

It  was  doubtless  the  intention  of  the  Canadian  authorities 
to  preserve  strict  neutrality.  Canadian  sympathy  in  1S61 
was  naturally  with  the  United  States.  In  fact,  there  was  for 
some  time  before  the  Civil  War  a  strong  feeling  for  annexa- 
tion to  the  prosperous  country  whose  internal  improvements 
and  manufacturii'  :  towns  could  be  seen  from  Brock's  Monu- 
ment. But  the  people  of  the  United  States  were  suspicious 
when  the  nation  was  in  peril.  Secretary  Seward's  circular  of 
October  14  to  the  Northern  governors  spoke  about  the  need 
of  defenses  for  the  lakes.  In  reply  to  this  the  Canadian 
papers  said  that  fortifications  on  the  north  were  a  menace  to 
Canada.  The  English  papers  doubted  whether  tlie  conven- 
tion which  made  the  Great  Lakes  neutral  would  justify  either 
England  or  the  United  States  in  erecting  fortifications  along 
their  shores,  and  it  was  stated  that  such  fortresses  would  only 
be  standing  menaces  and  could  not  answer  the  end  desired. 

On  November  8  the  Tvcnl  affair  occurred,  and  was  a 
new  cause  of  alarm  in  regard  to  the  relations  between 
England  and  the  United  States,  but  it  does  not  appear  that 
the  danger  from  Canada  was  great  enough  to  require  de- 
fensive preparations  in  that  quarter.  The  Detroit  Free  Press 
said  that  there  was  no  danger  on  the  lakes,  and  that  the  mer- 
chant craft  could  be  used  for  defense  in  case  of  hostilities. 
The  Toronto  Globe  said  that  the  act  of  Commodore  Wilkes 
could  not  cause  any  apprehension  of  war  between  the  two 
countries. '  Other  Canadian  papers  went  so  far  as  to  say  that 
the  weight  of  authority  might  be  found  to  lie  upon  the  side 
of  Wilkes.*  There  was  a  wide  Northern  sympathy  in  Canada 
at  this  time.    The  Detroit  Free  Press  saw  no  danger  upon 


ii 


'  London  Times,  Jan.  7,  1862. 

'  Information  at  Bureau  of  Revenue  Marine. 

*  Toronto  Globe,  Nov.  22,  1861. 

*  Montreal  Herald  and  Gazette,  Nov.  20. 


"»3 


■  fl 


■1 


.-H 


1 


i 


ii  • 


I  ^ 


<|l 


m 


■i  t 


fall 


140 


Naitrality  of  the  American  Lakes. 


the  lakes.  The  comment  of  the  London  press  and  the  de- 
mand of  the  British  Government  in  December,  however, 
seemed  to  forebode  war,  and  each  side  considered  plans  for 
the  defense  of  the  lakes.  There  was  an  impression  in  Canada 
that  General  Scott  returned  from  France  solely  to  give  coun- 
sel as  to  an  invasion  of  that  country,  and  there  was  a  decrease 
of  Canadian  sympathy  for  the  Union  cause. 

In  the  midst  of  the  general  excitement,  statesmen  were 
carried  away  by  their  feelings;  but  Lincoln  and  Seward  un- 
influenced by  passion  and  prejudice,  surveyed  calmly  and 
decided  wisely.     The  past  policy  of  the  country  was  con- 
tinued and  war  was  averted,  but  the  rankling  wound  caused 
by  the  Trent  affair  was  one  that  could  not  be  healed  at  once. 
England  would  have  had  an  immediate  advantage  in  case 
war  had  broken  out.    She  had  dug  a  canal  from  the  foot  of 
Lake  Ontario,  on  a  line  parallel  to  the  river,  but  beyond 
the  reach  of  American  guns  from  the  opposite  shore,  to  a 
point  on  the  St.  Lawrence  below,  beyond  American  jurisdic- 
tion, thus  securing  a  safe  channel  to  and  from  the  lakes.    She 
also  had  a  canal  around  the  falls  of  Niagara.    Thus  she  could 
in  a  short  time  convey  light-draft  gunboats  from  the  ocean 
to  the  lakes,  and  threaten  American  commerce  on  the  lake 
cities.    The  House  Military  Committee,  however,  probably 
exaggerated  the  danger.    Its  report  stated  that  the  wealthy 
cities  and  immense  commerce  of  the  United  States  upon  the 
lakes  from  ( )gdcnsburg  to  Chicago  was  "as  open  to  incur- 
sions as  was  Mexico  when  invaded  by  Cortez;"  that  lir^ht- 
draft  gunboats  could  in  one  month  shell  every  town,  and  at 
one  blow  "sweep  our  commerce  from  that  entire  chain  of 
waters."    It  went  on  to  say: 

"Occupied  by  our  vast  commercial  enterprises  and  bv  vio- 
lent party  conflicts,  our  people  failed  to  notice  at  the  time 
that  the  safety  of  our  entire  northern  frontier  has  been  de- 
stroyed by  the  digging  of  two  short  canals.  Near  the  head 
of  the  St.  Lawrence,  the  British,  to  complete  their  supremacy 
on  the  lakes,  have  built  a  large  navr-l  depot  for  the  con^Mruc- 
tion  and  repair  of  vessels,  and  a  very  strong  fort  to  protect 


^ 


Agitation  of  Lake  Defenses  During  Civil  War.      141 


the  depot  and  the  outlets  of  tlie  lake.  .  .  .  The  result  of  all 
this  is  that  in  the  absence  of  ships  of  war  on  the  lakes,  and  of 
means  to  convey  them  there  from  the  ocean,  the  United 
States,  upon  the  breaking-  out  of  the  war,  would,  without 
navy  yards  and  suitable  docks,  ha\c  to  commence  the  build- 
ing of  a  fleet  upon  Lake  Ontario  and  another  upon  the  upper 
lakes.  At  the  same  time  England,  possessing  a  naval  depot 
at  the  entrance  of  this  system  of  waters,  can  forestall  us  in  all 
our  attempts,  both  offensive  and  defensive." 

But  the  British  probably  felt  that  the  ultimate  advantage 
in  this  quarter  would  rest  with  the  United  States.  They  did 
not  desire  to  make  the  lakes  the  theatre  of  any  conflict  which 
might  arise.  Sir  Francis  Head  said:  "If  Canadian  vessels 
are  attacked  on  fresh  waters,  let  the  injury  be  promptly 
avenged  by  the  British  navy  throughout  the  wide,  rude,  salt, 
aqueous  surface  of  the  globe."  Mr.  C.  F.  Adams  thought 
that  it  was  the  discovery  of  the  indefensible  condition  of  Can- 
ada which  materially  contributed  to  cool  the  ardor  with  which 
the  discussion  of  the  Trent  affair  was  entered  into.'  Air. 
W.  H.  Russell,  an  Englishman,  who  went  from  the  United 
States  to  Canada  just  after  the  Trent  afTair  to  study  the 
condition  of  the  Canadian  frontier,  said  that  it  was  assailable 
at  all  points.  The  line  of  the  Welland  canal  was  open  and  de- 
fenseless. Hamilton  had  no  defenses;  the  defenses  of  To- 
ronto were  lu  Jicrous ;  the  Grand  Trunk  Railway  was  close  to 
the  shores  of  Lake  Ontario,  where  communication  could  be 
easily  cut;  Lake  Michigan  gave  the  United  States  the  ad- 
vantage. New  York  alone  was  richer  than  the  Canadas; 
England  did  not  have  as  many  light  vessels  as  the  United 
States,  and  Canada  could  not  guard  herself  from  invasion  by 
preparing  a  navy  in  time  of  peace.^ 

Nevertheless,  the  evident  immediate  advantage  which  the 
British  had  upon  the  lakes  was  the  source  of  various  discus- 


Ut 


•     '''/if  i 


'^Kv''? 


'  nesp.ntches,  March  24,  1865. 

■^  W.   H.   Russell:  Canada  and  its  Defences,    Conditions  and  Re- 
sources. 


i„<m* 


142 


NeiitralHy  of  the  American   Lakes . 


sions,  resolutiDns  and  reports  concerning  the  northern  fron- 
tier during  the  year  1862.  The  Ohio  legislature  passed  reso- 
lutions in  favor  of  a  naval  depot  on  Lake  Erie  to  protect  the 
countr}-  from  danger  or  injury  by  an  "armed  enemy. "'  Lieu- 
tenant Tottcn  had  also  recommended  such  a  depot  at  some 
point  on  the  western  lakes.  The  House  Committee  (on 
Harbor  Defenses  on  Lakes  and  Rivers)  favored  lake  de- 
fenses.' The  "brilliant  naval  triumiihs"  upon  the  lakes  in 
earlier  days  were  held  out  to  the  "brethren  of  the  East"  in 
order  to  secure  their  vote  for  defenses.  The  House  Military 
Committee  reported  in  favor  of  a  ship  canal  from  the  Missis- 
sippi river  to  the  lakes,  in  order  to  admit  gunboats,  though 
they  did  not  think  it  wise  to  abrogate  the  Agreement  of  1817 
at  that  time.^  I\e])orts  upon  a  nati(}nal  armory  in  the  West 
favored  Pittsburg  rather  than  Chicago,  on  the  ground  that 
it  was  near  the  lakes,  but  not  upon  them.'  On  Aoril  23.  Mr. 
Blair,  of  the  Military  Conmiittee,  reported  in  favor  of  mili- 
tary canals  from  the  Mississippi  to  the  lakes  and  from  the 
lakes  to  the  Hudson,  so  that  "one  leet  would  answer  for  two" 
in  protecting  the  "exposed"  northern  frontier.'  On  April  28 
there  was  a  report  upon  the  feasibility  of  enlarging  the  Illi- 
nois and  Michigan  canal  so  gunboats  could  pass  to  Lake 
Michigan. '■  It  was  believed  by  many  that  the  Agreement  of 
181 7  did  not  apply  to  that  lake.'  On  June  3,  Mr.  Ijlair,  of  the 
Militar}-  Committee,  reported  upon  the  petitions  for  enlarg- 
ing the  locks  of  the  Erie  and  Oswego  canals  so  monitors 
could  pass  for  the  defense  of  the  lakes."  Partially  to  over- 
come the  British  advantage  on  the  lakes,  the  New  York  Sen- 
ate also  proposed  to  adapt  the  canals  of  the  State  to  the  de- 
fense of  the  northwestern  lakes. " 


•  H.  Misc.  Doc.  45,  37-2,  F"t;b.  21,  1.S62. 
'  H.  Reports  23,  37-2,  V(j1   3,  Feb.  12. 

■•  W.  Rei)orts  37,  37-2,  Vol.  3.  I'"cb.  20. 

*  Reports  ot  Cum.  43,  37-2,  Vol.  3,  Feb.  28. 
■■'  Reports  of  Com.  86,  37-2,  Vol.  4,  April  23. 
"  Reports  of  Com.  96,  37-2,  Vol.  4,  April  28. 
•Congressional  Record,  38-1,  May  25,  1S62. 
"  Reports  of  Com.  114,  37-2,  Vol.  4,  June  3. 
'N.  V.  Senate  Journal,  1862. 


Agitation  of  Lake  Defenses  During  Civil  War.      143 

Back  of  all  the  petitions  and  reports  upon  ship  canals  v;as 
something-  besides  the  feeling  of  danger.  It  was  the  actual 
need  of  western  conniierce  more  than  any  imminent  danger 
from  northern  attack  that  developed  the  plans  for  connecting 
the  lakes  with  the  Mississippi  and  the  Atlantic  by  deep  water- 
ways. The  ghost  of  British  fleets  upon  the  lakes  was  pushed 
into  prominence  in  order  to  get  the  aid  of  the  government 
in  digging  canals.  There  was  doubtless  some  cause  for  un- 
easiness in  the  rumors  which  were  occasionally  afloat,'  and 
there  was  a  considerable  munber  of  people  in  both  countries 
who  might  have  rushed  into  a  conflict  if  they  could  have  had 
their  way ;  but  there  appears  to  have  been  a  general  convic- 
tion that  the  countries  would  reach  a  mutual  understanding. 

During  the  first  two  years  of  the  Civil  War,  when  the 
lower  Mississippi  was  held  by  the  Confederates,  the  west- 
ern products  considerably  increased  the  lake  commerce.  The 
Canadian  canals,  even  before,  were  not  of  sufficient  capacity 
to  satisfy  the  needs  of  the  American  commerce.  In  addi- 
tion to  this,  just  after  the  Trent  affair  there  was  consider- 
able American  sentiment  in  favor  of  canals  on  American  soil. 
A  select  conmiittee  of  Congress  in  March,  1863,  thought  that 
our  Canadian  neighbors  had  insidted  us  and  that  we  should 
not  be  compelled  to  use  their  canals. 

In  June,  1863,  at  a  Ship  Canal  Convention  in  Chicago,  five 
thousand  delegates  were  reported  to  be  present.  The  Union 
arms  had  recently  sustained  serious  defeats,  and  the  Con- 
federates were  planning  to  carry  the  war  north  of  the  Po- 
tomac. The  fear  that  this  would  secure  the  adherence  of  Eng- 
land to  the  Confederate  cause  was  increased.  It  was  thought 
to  be  a  favorable  time  to  secure  the  aid  of  the  government  in 
constructing  a  commercial  waterway  from  the  ^Mississippi 
to  the  lakes  and  from  the  lakes  to  the  Atlantic.  Nearly  every 
speaker  at  the  convention  said  that  the  lake  commerce  was 
in  great  danger.  Many  thought  there  should  be  a  procession 
of  the  Eads  ironclads  from  the  ^lississippi  to  Lake  Michigan. 


■  ii  '■■  ■ 

' '"'t'd 
-'.-.ij 

i/,4 


'..M 


■  >'•;•■■ 


m 


'  -'.'t'a 


i 


-i 


t: 


i   ,1 


144 


Neubalily  of  thr  American  Lakes, 


Mr.  S])aldiiig,  of  Oliii),  favored  the  Niagara  canal  also,  so 
that  the  procession  could  pass  on  to  Lake  Ontario. 

It  is  evident  that  the  danf,a'r  <jf  war  was  much  exafrcfer- 
atcd.  \'icc-TVcKidcnt  Ilanilin  spoke  of  the  military  value  of 
the  canals,  but  he  mentioned  the  conmicrcial  value  also.  Mr. 
Huhbel,  of  Wisconsin,  said  the  canals  were  not  a  military 
necessity.  He  said  that  if  l^n^land  had  desired  war  she 
would  have  declared  it  in  1862  "when  the  South  had  us  by 
the  throat,"  and  that  there  was  now  no  danger  of  war  with 
her  "exce])t  by  our  own  volition."  Mr.  ] ).  15.  "^  t^les,  of 
New  York,  talked  of  the  "glorious  West  as  a  j?  :  hog- 

pen." With  the  co-operation  of  the  hot;-  and  the  canals,  vast 
amounts  of  corn  could  be  taken  to  the  sea.  The  hog  could 
eat  the  corn  and  Europe  could  eat  the  hog. 

The  convention  passed  resolutions  declaring  the  construc- 
tion and  enlargement  of  canals  between  the  Mississippi  river 
and  the  Atlantic,  with  canals  ccmnecting  the  ^akes,  as  of  ereat 
military  and  commercial  importance.  It  was  stated  that  such 
canals  were  demanded  alike  by  military  prudence,  political 
wisdom  and  the  necessity  of  commerce;  that  they  would  "fur- 
nish the  cheapest  and  most  expeditious  means  of  protecting 
the  northern  frontier,"  and,  at  the  same  time,  "promote  the 
rapid  development  and  permanent  union  of  the  whole  coun- 
try.'" 

The  energy  and  resources  of  the  country  were  taxed  to 
the  utmost  at  this  time,  and  these  schemes  were  not  adopted 
by  the  government,  though  they  were  proposed  several 
times  in  the  Thirty-eighth  Congress,  during  the  early  part 
of  1864.-' 

By  July  4,  1863,  the  tide  of  the  Civil  War  had  clearly 
turned  in  favor  of  the  ITnion  cause.  Vicksburg  had  fallen, 
and  a  few  days  later  the  Mississippi  was  entirely  wrested  from 
the  hands  of  the  Confederates.  Gettysburg  had  also  helped 
to  decide  the  issue  of  the  war.    The  invasion  by  the  gallant 


Springfield  Daily  Illinois  Stale  Jourual,  June  4,  1863. 
•  Congressional  Record,  Vol  57. 


1864. 


Ajii;ilaiion  of  Lake  Defenses  Durinj^  Civil  War.      115 

Lcc  was  rc'pclU'd.  It  was  considered  an  auspicious  time  for 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  to  speak  in  a  more  de- 
cided tone  apainst  the  attitude  of  tlic  Ilritish  (J(jvernment 
toward  tlie  Cotifederates.  It  apf)rehended  a  crisis  in  case  of 
the  prohahle  faihire  of  all  the  "friendly  appeals  to  Her  Maj- 
esty's (iovernnient  ajj;ainst  suffering  a  deeply  concerted  and 
rapidly  prcparinj^  naval  war  to  be  waj^fed  against  the  United 
States  from  British  i)orts  in  Eur'ijje  and  America  by  British 
subjects  in  I'ritish  built  and  armed  vessels."'  Mr.  Seward, 
on  July  1 1,  when  he  felt  the  dans^er  of  an  approachinjij  naval 
conflict  with  Cireat  I'.ritain.  in  l:is  instructions  to  .Mr.  Adams 
used  some  expressions  which  were  afterwards  incorporated 
into  the  I'rcsident's  messa{,'e,  and  were  considered  by  the 
British  Government  to  be  "disrespectful  and  menacing." 
The  ['resident,  in  the  following  March,  allowed  any  expres- 
sions to  be  withdrawn  which  Lord  F'iussell  should  consider 
exceptional,  though  it  was  asserted  that  their  object  had 
been  "to  remove  out  of  the  way  a  stumbling-block  of  national 
offenses,"  and  not  to  offend  or  provoke  war. 

Events  which  occurred  after  his  letter  of  July  ii,  1863, 
"such  as  the  invasion  of  Johnson's  Island  from  Canada  .  .  . 
and  especially  the  report  of  Mailing,  the  pretended  Secretary 
of  Xavy  of  the  insurgents,"  caused  Mr.  Seward  to  feel  that 
the  trouble  which  he  appr-'hended  "was  not  overestimated 
nor  too  soon  anticipated." 

In  the  early  jiart  of  November,  1863,  the  Governor  Gen- 
eral of  Canada  notified  Lord  Lyons  at  Washington  that  there 
was  rumor  of  a  plot  of  the  Confederates  in  Canada  to  secure 
steamers  on  Lake  Erie,  release  the  prisoners  at  Johnson's 
Island,  and  then  invade  the  United  States  by  an  attack  upon 
Buffalo."  Lord  Lyons,  at  a  late  hour  on  the  night  of  Novem- 
ber II,  promptly  notified  Mr.  Seward  so  that  measures  could 
be  taken  to  watch  lake  steamers.  General  Dix  was  at  once 
sent  to  the  frontier,  and  Honorable  Preston  King  was  sent 


'  ly  Iiistnictions,  p.  21.1.  Seward  to  Adams,  No.  859,  March  2, 
1864. 

''  Correspondence  relating  to  Fenian  Invasion  and  Rebellion  of  the 
Southern  States.     Publislied  at  Ottawa,  1869. 

10 


f' 


^>' 


If ^      ."  141^    t«^ 


■il.'Ji'-"i' 


14(5 


Neuitality  of  the  American  Lakes, 


to  confer  upon  the  subject  with  Lord  Monck,  so  that  there 
might  be  perfect  understanding;^  l)ct\veen  the  authorities  of 
Canada  and  tlie  I'uited  States/  The  Michigan  anchored 
off  Johnson's  Island  to  prevent  any  expedition  against  that 
place,  but  Lord  Monck's  warning  had  already  prevented  the 
execution  of  the  plot.'  The  United  States  ceased  to  make 
military  demonstrations  on  the  Vermont  border.' 

At  the  beginning  of  1864  there  was  much  anxiety  concern- 
ing the  operation  of  Confederate  agents  along  the  northern 
border  of  the  L^nited  States.     Suspicious  vessels  were  re- 
ported to  be  in  Canadian  waters.    They  were  supposed  to  be 
there  for  the  purpose  of  making  piratical  attacks  upon  the 
lake  trade   of  the   United   States.     The   Montreal  was  re- 
ported to  be  armed  with  twenty-four  guns,  small-arms,  cut- 
lasses  and    boarding-pikes.      The    Saratoga    was    also    re- 
ported as  a  hostile  vessel.    Lord  Lyons  notified  Lord  Monck 
of  the  reports  concerning  the  vessels,  and  he  at  once  took 
steps  to  detain  them  if  the  report  proved  to  be  true.     The 
large  number  of  Confederates  in  Canada  at  this  time  caused 
Lord  Monck  to  have  fears  that  there  would  be  great  danger 
of  having  the  neutrality  of  the  Canadian  territory  compro- 
mised during  the  following  season,  and  this  consideration 
caused  him  to  think  that  there  ought  to  be  some  I'.ritish 
naval  force  stationed  on  the  lakes  to  enforce  the  commercial 
police.     On  March  19  he  wrote  to  the  Duke  of  Newcastle 
that  the  Agreement  of  1817  prohibited  the  United  States 
from  a  naval  force  competent  to  protect  her  commerce  from 
piratical  attempts  at  that  time,*  and  that  Great  I'.ritain  was 
"bound  to  take  stringent  precautions  that  her  harbors  shall 
not  be  used  for  the  preparation  of  expeditions  hostile  to  the 
trade  of  the  United  States  against  which  the  stipulations  of 
a  treaty  prevents  that  power  from  making  adequate  provi- 

'  Seward  to  Lyons,  Nov.  12. 
-  Adams  to  Russell,  l-Vh.  22,  1864. 
•'  10  NotL'S  from  .State  Department  to  Britisli  Legation. 
*Cor.  Rel.  to  Fenian  Invasion  and  Rebellion  of  .Southern  States, 
p.  61. 


Agitatio7i  of  Lake  Defenses  During  Civil  War.      147 

sion  for  her  defense."'  He  sug^j^ested  that  five  vessels  small 
enough  to  pass  through  Canadian  canals  should  be  sent  out 
— one  for  Lake  Ontario,  and  two  each  for  Lakes  Eric  and 
Huron. 

Lord  Monck  sent  a  confidential  agent  to  investigate  the 
various  reports  concerning  Confederate  ves'^els,  and  he  re- 
ported to  Lord  Russell  on  March  31  that  no  evidence  was 
found.  Neither  the  Montreal  nor  the  Saratoga  could  be  dis- 
covered.'' llut  he  was  still  of  the  opinion  that  it  would  be 
"most  advisable  to  have  some  vessels  bearing  Her  Majesty's 
flag  upon  the  lakes.'"  There  was  no  royal  navy  on  the  lakes, 
and  he  thought  this  might  hold  out  some  inducement  to 
piratical  attempts.  Rumors,  even  though  they  had  no  foun- 
dation, produced  a  feeling  of  unrest  on  the  part  of  those 
interested  in  the  lake  trade  of  the  United  vStates  "which 
might  easily  be  exaggerated  into  a  sentiment  of  hostility 
towards  the  Canadians  from  whose  harbors  they  imagine  an 
attack  on  their  commerce  might  issue."  Lord  Monck 
thought  the  evil  efifccts  of  rumors  could  be  stopped  if  it  were 
known  that  one  British  vessel  was  stationed  on  each  of  the 
lakes,  Ontario,  Erie  and  Huron.  Mr.  Cardwell,  who  soon 
took  the  place  of  the  Duke  of  Newcastle  at  the  Home  Office, 
promised  (April  23)  to  address  Lord  Monck  later  concerning 
the  small  naval  vessels  which  were  to  be  kept  within  the 
limits  of  the  Agreement  of  18 17,  but  no  vessels  were  ever 
sent.  It  was  doubtless  considered  wise  to  make  no  prepara- 
tions upon  the  frontier  which  might  be  misconstrued  as  a 
menace  to  the  United  States.' 


'  Lord  Moiick's  ideas  were  not  clear  in  rej^ard  to  tlie  Agreement  of 
i,Si7.  He  tlioii^iU  it  limited  both  parties  to  "one  vessel  on  Lake 
Ontario  and  two  on  each  of  tlie  other  lakes."  He  was  also  under 
the  fi'lse  impression  that  the  prohibition  had  been  "imposed  on  the 
United  .States"  in  the  interest  of  Great  Britain. 

'  62  Notes  to  State  Department. 

■\Cor.  Ri'l.  to  Fenian  Invasion  and  Rebellion  of  Southern  States, 
p.  107.     Monc'-  to  Newcastle. 

♦  Toronto  Weekly  Leader,  Dec.  30,  1864. 


I 

vi 


,1'^ 


'■''M 


Vi 


■    i  , 


I)  ill 


ft"?^ 


'■s\\'ii 


'     'I      J: 

n 


: 

If 


I 


!  i: 


148 


Ncidralily  of  the  American  Lakes. 


The  reports  of  Confederate  orj^anizations  in  Canada  prob- 
ably had  some  influence  in  causing  the  L'nited  States  to  be- 
gin the  building  of  cutters  for  the  lake  revenue  service.  A 
side-screw  cutter  was  begun  at  Lower  lUack  Rock,  near 
Buffalo,  in  the  early  part  of  April,  and  was  expected  to  be 
ready  in  three  months. '  Lord  l^yons  saw  a  newspaper  state- 
ment concerning  the  new  vessel,  and  asked  Mr.  Seward 
whether  it  would  contravene  the  conditions  of  1817."  The 
latter  made  inquiry  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  on 
May  1 1  he  wrote  Lord  Lyons  that  it  appeared  that  the  vessel 
would  form  "no  part  of  the  naval  force  of  the  l'nited  States," 
but  was  intended  exclusively  for  the  prevention  of  snuig- 
gHng.' 

But  the  idea  of  making  these  revenue  vessels  available  for 
defense  in  case  of  an  emergency  was  probably  considered, 
though  there  was  no  intention  of  violating  the  stipulations 
of  1817.  On  May  5,  Secretary  Chase,  of  the  Treasury,  wr(.)te 
Secretary  Seward  as  follows: 

"I  have  the  honor  to  call  your  attention  to  the  arrangement 
of  Ajiril,  1817,  between  the  Up''^'x1  States  and  (Ireat  IJritain 
(U.  S.  Stat,  at  Large,  v.  8,  p.  2',  )  relative  to  the  naval  force 
to  be  maintained  upon  the  American  lakes,  and  to  inf|uire 
whether  the  provision  of  the  arrangement  which  restricts  the 
naval  force  of  the  two  governments  to  two  vessels  on  the 
upper  lakes,  is  construed  by  the  Department  of  State  to 
embrace  Lake  Er'^  as  among  the  lakes  referred  to;  also 
whether  it  is  within  the  scope  of  the  arrangement  to  restrict 
the  tonnage  and  armament  of  vessels  designed  exclusively 
for  the  Revenue  Service." 

On  May  7,  Mr.  Seward  replied: 

"I  have  the  honor  to  state  that,  in  my  opinion,  Lake  I'^rie 
may  be  considered  as  one  of  the  upper  lakes  referred  to  in 
that  instrument.  I  am  not,  however,  prepared  to  acknowl- 
edge that  its  purpose  was  to  restrict  the  armament  and  ton- 


'  Huffalo  Morniug  Courier,  April  15,  1864, 

^63  Notes  to  .State  Departiiu-iit. 

'  1 1  Notes  from  .State  Department,  p.  222. 


Agitation  of  Lake  Defaises  During  Civil  War.      149 

nagc  of  vessels  dcsij^^ncd  exclusively  for  the  Revenue  Scr- 
vice. 

The  United  States  Government  desired  to  live  up  to  the 
spirit  of  the  Ap^reement  of  1817,  althoup^h  there  was  a  feelinpf 
in  Conpfress  that  it  was  unequal  under  the  chanpfcs  which  had 
occurred  since  its  inception.  It  was  helieved  that  EniLrland 
Vi-as  too  passive  in  her  policy  concerninj:^  the  Civil  War  in 
the  United  States,  and  that  she  should  have  followed  the  ad- 
vice of  those  Enjrlish  statesmen  who  advocated  a  more  lib- 
eral policy  toward  the  United  States  (^loveninient.'  Not- 
withstanding- the  avowed  intention  of  the  Ilritish  (iovern- 
mcnt  to  preserve  a  strict  neutrality,  the  Confederates  man- 
aged to  get  materials  of  war  from  English  ports.  The 
Union  cause  doubtless  received  assistance  in  the  same  way, 
but  this  did  not  j^revcnt  the  widespread  belief  that  the  Con- 
federates were  receiving  assistance  that  could  have  been  pre- 
vented. On  April  22,  Mr.  Seward  said:  "We  nnist  finish  the 
Civil  War  soon  or  we  shall  get  in  war  with  England."  Two 
months  later  he  was  convinced  that  British  sympathy  was 
clearly  with  the  South. 

The  uneasiness  regarding  the  Confederates  in  Canada  con- 
tinued.' Lord  .Monck  was  kept  busy  investigating  rei)orts 
concerning  them.  lie  asked  the  authorities  to  adopt  every 
precaution  to  prevent  the  Confederates  from  making  Canada 
a  base  for  hostilities  against  the  Northern  States.  Rut  not- 
withstanding the  diligence  of  the  authorities,  it  was  still  pos- 
sible for  the  Confederates  to  find  their  way  into  Canada  and 
secretly  plot  to  break  the  peace  between  Canada  and  the 
United  States.  Relations  with  Great  Britain  were  also  made 
more  complicated  by  the  Canadian  canal  pf)licy,  which  was 
not  considered  to  be  lil)eral  enough  to  justify  tiie  United 
States  in  continuing  the  Reciprocity  Treaty. 

On  May  25,  Mr.  Spalding,  in  the  House,  passed  from  a 
discussion  of  the  inequalities  of  the  Reciprocity  Treaty  to 


^ii 


•  Vol.  6.},  Domestic  betters,  p.  22S. 
'■"SS  Dcspatdies,  Nd.  694,  May  19,  i.S6i. 
'64  and  65  Notes  to  State  Deparlinent. 


'    ■Vti/  'JB 


IT 


'ii. 


r^'M' 


m 


1 1 5 


y,  i ! 


150 


Neutrality  of  the  American  Lakes. 


consider  the  Agreement  of  1817,  "whereby,"  he  said.  "iBne 
northwestern  lakes,  with  a  population  of  ten  million  pec']:le 
upon  their  American  borders,  and  upon  whose  bosom  flcaits 
one-third  part  of  the  whole  commercial  wealth  of  our  cr-ium!- 
try,  were  placed  at  the  tender  mercies  of  Great  Britain.*^  He 
complained  that  the  United  States  Government  was  afraid 
it  would  offend  England  to  place  a  naval  depot  or  naiy  yaurd 
upon  the  American  coast  of  one  of  the  lakes,  though  Gneat 
Britain  had  been  allowed  quietly  to  dig  canals  by  which  fSie 
could  pass  gunboats  from  Quebec  to  Chicago  to  '■devaftatie 
our  fairest  cities  and  destroy  our  richest  commerce.*' 

Mr.  Spalding  said  that  by  their  canals  the  British  liad  "de- 
feated the  only  object  that  led  us  into  the  arrangement."  Mr. 
Washburn  thought  that  if  the  government  would  enlarge  jlie 
Illinois  and  Michigan  canals  in  his  State  the  United  Slates 
would  also  be  able  lo  send  gunboats  into  the  lakes.  Wt. 
Pruyn,  of  New  York,  said  the  United  States  could  build  s^im- 
boats  on  Lake  Michigan,  but  Mr.  Spalding  mformed  him 
that  the  head  of  the  Navy  Department  said  that  this  lake  also 
was  included  under  the  Agreement  of  181 7.  Mr.  Arnold  said 
there  were  one  hundred  vessels  of  war  on  the  Mississ-ippi 
which  could  be  taken  to  the  lakes,  and  he  favored  the  camials 
rather  than  the  abrogation  of  treaties.  Mr.  Spalding  was 
tuned  up  to  a  higher  key.  He  had  a  constituent  who  coo- 
trolled  fourteen  steam  propellers  from  Chicago  to  Ogdems- 
burg,  all  of  which  could  within  a  week  have  been  made  into 
gunboats  if  there  only  had  been  a  navy  yard  on  the  Is'xs. 
Mr.  Spalding  was  not  satisfied  with  the  decision  of  the  Niw 
Department,  and  he  was  at  that  time  in  favor  of  makirag  a 
clean  sweep  of  treaties.  "I  hope,"  he  said,  "when  we  get 
our  hands  once  in  we  will  make  clean  work." 

On  account  of  the  objections  which  had  been  made  to 
establishing  a  naval  depot  upon  the  lakes,  Mr.  Spaldinc.  •>n 
June  13,  introduced  a  joint  resolution  for  the  terminau^j'n  of 
the  Agreement  of  1817.  On  June  18  it  passed  the  Hom5c  in 
the  following  form: 


*  Congressional  Globe,  Vol.  58,  38-1,  p.  Z481. 


Agitation  of  Lake  Defenses  During  Civil  War.      151 

''Whereas  the  treaty  of  eighteen  hundred  and  seventeen, 
as  to  the  naval  force  upon  the  lakes,  was  designed  as  a  tem- 
porary arrangement  only,  and  although  equal  and  just  at  the 
time  it  was  made,  has  become  greatly  unequal  through  the 
construction  by  Great  Britain  of  sundry  ship  canals:  and 
whereas  the  vast  interests  of  commerce  upon  the  northwest- 
ern lakes,  and  the  security  of  cities  and  towns  situated  on 
their  American  borders,  manifestly  require  the  establishment 
of  one  or  more  navy  yards  wherein  ships  may  be  fitted  and 
prepared  for  naval  warfare;  and  zdiercas  the  United  States 
Government,  unlike  that  of  Great  Britain,  is  destitute  of  ship 
canals  for  the  transmission  of  gunboats  from  the  Atlantic 
Ocean  to  the  western  lakes: 

"Be  it  resokrd  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representa- 
tives of  the  United  States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled, 
that  the  President  of  the  United  States  be,  and  is  hereby, 
authorized  and  directed  to  jive  notice  to  the  Government  of 
Great  Britain  that  it  is  the  wish  and  intention  of  the  United 
States  to  terminate  said  arrangement  of  eighteen  hundred 
and  seventeen,  in  respect  to  the  naval  force  upon  the  lakes, 
at  the  end  of  six  months  from  and  after  the  giving  of  said 
notice." 

This  resolution  was  not  considered  in  the  Senate,  but  on 
August  4  Lord  LyoJis  wrote  Mr.  Seward  that  the  attention 
of  his  government  had  been  drawn  to  the  resolution,  and 
would  view  with  regret  and  alarm  the  abrogation  of  an  ar- 
rangement which  had  for  fifty  years  prevented  occasions  of 
disagreement,  as  well  as  needless  expense  and  inconveni- 
ence.* Mr.  Seward  replied  that  there  was  "at  present  no  in- 
tention to  abrogate  the  arrangement,"  and  that  timely  notice 
would  be  given  in  case  the  government  should  favor  its  ab- 
rogation.* 

But  letters  and  telegrams  continued  to  announce  that  the 
Confederates  were  negotiating  for  the  purchase  of  boats  on 


'  67  Notes  to  Statu  Department. 

''  1 1  Notes  from  State  Department,  p.  558. 


(m 


1  'i^'-a 

"m 


Vim 

m 


'MP''- 


m 


Uj 


Ui 


ml 


i 


, 


I 

iii 


13 


!t 


I : 


i 


i 


152 


Ncutralily  of  the  American  Lakes. 


the  lakes.  In  July  there  were  rumors  that  they  had  machines 
which  were  to  be  mounted  on  vessels,'  and  that  they  intended 
to  destroy  the  cities  on  the  lakes.  Such  reports  induced  the 
United  States  Government  to  place  a  restriction  upon  the 
export  of  materials  of  war  from  New  York  to  the  British 
colonies  .'^ 

An  aflfair  on  Lake  Erie  on  September  19  broue^ht  matters 
to  a  crisis.  The  steamboat  Philo  Parsons  left  Detroit  for 
Sandusky,  taking  passenjjers  with  supposed  bapf.cratre  at 
Sandwich  and  Amherstburj?.  They  proved  to  be  Confed- 
erates, and  after  leavinpr  Kelly's  Island  they  took  charpfc  of 
the  vessel.  They  intended  to  co-operate  with  another  force 
desij^ned  to  capture  the  armed  steamer  Michigan  at  San- 
dusky, to  release  rebel  prisoners  at  Camp  Johnson,  near  San- 
dusky, and  then  to  conmiit  depredations  on  the  lake  cities.' 
The  design  on  the  Michigan  having  failed,  the  Parsons  was 
brought  back  to  the  Detroit  river,  and  left  at  Sandwich  in  a 
sinking  condition.  During  the  raid  the  steamer  Ishnd 
Queen  and  some  United  States  soldiers  were  also  captured. 

The  news  that  the  Confederate  flag  had  been  unfurled 
upon  the  lakes  created  much  excitement  along  the  frontier. 
Major-deneral  Hitchcock,  of  Sandusky,  advised  "that  no 
time  be  lost  in  putting  afloat  armed  vessels  upon  Lake  On- 
tario and  speedily  ujjon  the  other  lakes  also."  On  SerUem- 
ber  26,  Mr.  F.  W.  Seward  notified  Mr.  Burnley,  of  the  Brit- 
ish legation  at  Washington,  that  owing  to  the  recent  pro- 
ceedings on  the  lakes  it  was  found  necessary  to  increase  the 
"observing  force"  temporarily  in  that  (juarter.'  The  steam 
propeller  Hector  was  chartered  at  Oswego,  N.  Y.,  for  reve- 
nue-cutter service.  The  lVinsloz<<  had  been  chartered  at 
Buffalo  a  few  days  before  * 

'  I.ieut.  Col.  R.   H.  Hill  to  Capt.  C.  H.  Potter,  July  30,   1864.     See 
Cor.  Kcl.  lo  i'ciiians  and  Kchelliun  of  Soiitlitrn  Statts. 
'  n  Notes  from  .State  neparlment,  p.  573. 
'^Detroit  Free  /'ress,  .Stpt.  21,  1864. 

*  12  Notes  from  .State  Department,  p.  185. 

*  12  Notes  from  Slate  Department,  p.  203,  Oct.  i. 


Agitation  of  Lake  Defenses  Duri7ig  Civil  War.      153 

y  The  United  States  Governnicnt  felt  that  it  was  only  artinjv 

in  self-defense  in  meeting-  conditions  which  "conld  scarcely 
have  been  anticipated"  in  1817.'  In  the  Agreement  of  1817 
neither  party  had  expected  to  relinquish  its  right  of  self- 
defense  in  the  event  of  a  civil  war  in  its  territories.  Mr. 
Adams,  in  his  letter  to  Lord  Rnssell,  said  of  the  agreement: 

"It  certainly  did  not  contemplate  the  possible  intervention 
of  a  third  party,  ill-disposed  to  both,  which  should  malig- 
nantly avail  itself  of  the  known  provisions  of  the  compact 
for  the  purpose  of  working  certain  mischief  to  that  which  it 
hated  the  most  and  possibly  injuring  even  the  other.  l)y  •^rn- 
voking  strife  between  the  two.  Neither  could  it  have  fore- 
seen the  precise  position  in  which  Her  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment has  been  placed  by  recognizing  as  belligerents  persons 
capable  of  abusing  the  privilege  conceded  by  that  measure 
to  the  most  malicious  purpose."  ' 

Mr.  Seward  had  just  prepared  a  statement  of  the  outrage 
upon  Lake  Erie,  when  the  news  arrived  that  a  band  of 
twenty-five  desperate  men  had  attacked  St  Albans.  Vt., 
robbed  its  banks  and  boarding-houses  and  escaped  unon 
stolen  horses  to  Canada,  where  they  were  arrested  by  the 
municipal  authorities. 

Mr.  Seward  dircusscd  these  matters  in  a  friendly  spirit 
with  ]\Ir.  Burnley,  but  he  wrote  Mr.  Adams  in  London  to 
give  Lord  Russell  notice  that  after  six  months  the  L^nited 
States  would  deem  themselves  at  liberty  to  increase  the 
naval  armament  upon  the  lakes,  if,  in  their  judgment,  the 
condition  of  affairs  should  require  it.  lie  said  that  such 
events  required  prompt  and  decisive  proceedings  on  the  part 
of  the  British  Government  "in  order  to  prevent  the  danger  of 
ultimate  conflict  upon  the  Canadian  borders."' 

The  excitement  i)roduced  by  the  St.  Albans  affair  was  fed 
both  by  the  natural  course  of  events  and  by  artificial  means. 
It  was  felt  that  Canada  was  resi)onsible  for  the  conduct  of 

'  19  Instructions,  No.  1 136,  Oct.  24,  1S64. 

^  Nov.  23,  1 864. 

■■  19  Instruction'^,  No.  1136,  Oct.  24,  1S64. 


v-n. 


It 


I 


IT 

t  ill   f'   I 

m  Mli  ' '    i 

MWMmmM  ' 

■m 


f  -.'1 


:H| 


164 


Neutrality  of  the  American  Lakes. 


her  Confederate  guests,  and  that  their  bad  conduct  niiglit 
endanger  the  peace  with  Canada.'  It  produced  no  better 
fcehng  in  the  United  States  when  Lieutenant  Bennett  11. 
Young,  commander  of  the  St.  Albans  raiders,  declared  that 
he  went  to  Vermont  as  a  commissioned  officer  in  \\\z  pro- 
visional army  of  the  Confederate  States,  and  that  he  had  vio- 
lated no  law  of  Canada.'  False  reports  continued  to  alarm 
the  people  and  to  add  to  the  excitement  which  naturally  ex- 
isted upon  the  eve  of  a  great  Presidential  election.  On  Octo- 
ber 30,  the  American  consul  at  Toronto  telegraphed  the 
Mayor  of  Detroit  that  one  hundred  men,  armed  to  the  teeth 
and  loaded  with  combustibles,  had  left  Toronto  to  raid  De- 
troit.' The  congregations  at  Detroit  were  dismissed.  Bells 
rang.  Rumors  spread.  Crowds  met  and  had  to  be  dispersed 
by  the  Mayor.  The  hundred  men  never  arrived,  but  on  No- 
vember 2  a  telegram  from  Washington  annotmced  that  the 
State  Department  had  information  that  there  was  a  conspir- 
acy to  fire  all  the  principal  cities  in  the  North  on  election  day. 
The  Free  Press  had  ceased  to  place  nmch  reliance  in  such 
reports/  but  they  had  a  tendency  to  keep  up  an  unhealthy 
excitement  along  the  border.  Some,  guided  entirelv  jjy 
emotion  and  passion,  would  have  been  glad  if  a  disruption 
of  peaceful  relations  between  the  United  States  and  Canada 
could  have  been  brought  about.  The  war  had  given  a  great 
impetus  to  the  Fenian  organization,  and  there  were  many 
F^cnians  in  the  Federal  army  who  would  have  welcomed  an 
opportunity  to  invade  Canada.  Then  there  were  others, 
who,  speaking  for  political  effect  or  personal  influence,  fav- 
ored "the  next  war."  A  colonel  at  St.  Louis  said  that  "God 
Almighty  had  established  boundaries  for  the  great  Republic 


'  Detroit  Free  Press,  Oct.  27,  1864. 

-  Toronto  U'ce/cty  Leader,  Oct.  -■«,  1S64. 

^  Toronto  Weekly  Leadet,  Nov.  4,  1S64.     Detroit  Free  Press,  Oct. 

31- 

*  Detroit  Free  Press,  Nov.  4,  1864. 

'' Ui.x  lo  Stanton,  Nov.  22,  1864.     See  Correspondence  Relating  to 
Fenians  and  Southern  States. 


lat 


Agilalion  of  Lake  Di/cnses  During  Civil  War.       155 


m 


bounded  on  all  sides  by  oceans  and  peninsulas,"  and  tliat 
Canada  would  become  a  part  of  it.' 

Canadian  authorities  seem  to  have  done  all  they  could  to 
preserve  neutrality,  but  the  tone  of  some  American  news- 
papers gave  them  ofTeiiEC.  Governor  Monck  took  offense  at 
the  Dix  order  to  an  officer  at  Burlington  after  the  St.  Albans 
afTair,  which  spoke  of  pursuing  the  offenders  across  the 
boundary.'  Seward  wrote  Lord  Lyons  on  November  3  that 
"indignant  complaints  by  newspapers  ...  as  well  as  hasty 
popular  proceedings  for  self  defense  and  retaliation  are 
among  the  consec|uences  which  must  be  expected  to  occur 
when  unprovoked  aggressions  from  Canada  no  longer  allow 
her  citizens  to  navigate  the  intervening  waters  with  safety, 
or  rest  at  home  with  confidence  of  security.'" 

Mr.  Seward  found  no  fault  with  the  authorities  in  Canada, 
but  he  felt  that  the  two  governments  should  agree  upon  some 
more  effective  measures  to  preserve  the  peace.  He  saw  that 
the  provocations  against  the  people  along  the  line  of  the  bor- 
der might  lead  to  intrusions  from  the  American  side  of  the 
lakes.  He  remembered  the  border  troubles  of  1838  and  the 
excitement  at  the  time  of  the  McLeod  trial  in  1841.  Political 
agitations  had  existed  in  Canada  as  well  as  in  the  United 
States,  and  in  order  to  prevent  future  civil  strifes  he  was 
inclined  to  think  that  it  wt)uld  be  "wise  to  establish  a  pr(ii)er 
system  of  repression  now  which  would  prove  a  rock  of  safety 
for  both  countries  hereafter."  Mr.  Adams,  in  bringing  the 
matter  to  the  attention  of  Lord  Russell,  used  the  following 
language  :* 

"Political  agitation  terminating  at  times  in  civil  strife  is 
shown  by  experience  to  be  incident  to  the  lot  of  mankind 
however  combined  in  society.  Neither  is  it  an  evil  confined 
to  any  particular  region  or  race.    It  has  happened  heretofore 

'  Toronto  li^cekly  Leader,  Oct.  21,  1864. 

'72  Notes  to  .State  Department,  Lyons  to  Seward,  Oct.  29,   1864, 
(Monck  to  Lyons,  Oct.  26). 
'  12  Notes  '"rom  State  Department,  p.  346. 
*88  Despatches,  Nov.  23,  1864. 


! 


m 


i!  ' 

i 

\                '    ■ 

*■ 

< 

i 

1          '  ■    • 

■    r      ■ 

< 

■ 

(                    , 

■    ,\     . 

'  J    1          , 

1 

1          i 

;  '  f 

rlj       > 

1.1:1 

■  '  , 

t'i!': 

:       I 


156 


KeutralUy  of  the  American  Lakes, 


in  Canada,  and  what  is  now  a  scourpfc  afnictinp;  the  United 
States  may  be  Hkely  at  some  time  or  other  to  revisit  her.  In 
view  of  these  very  obvious  possibiHties.  T  am  instnu-ted  re- 
spectfully to  submit  to  Her  Majesty's  Ciovcrnuicnt  the  ques- 
tion whether  it  would  not  be  the  j)art  of  wisdom  to  establish 
such  a  system  of  repression  now  as  mi^ht  prove  a  rock  of 
safety  for  the  rapidly  multiplyinjj  population  of  both  coun- 
tries for  all  future  time." 

Whatever  this  plan  of  re])ression  was,  it  would  probably 
have  increased  the  naval  force  of  each  party  u]iou  the  laK'es. 
In  December  an  editorial  in  the  London  Times  stated  that 
the  P.ritish  authorities  should  assist  Mr.  Lincoln  if  p;^unboats 
on  Lake  Ontario  and  Lake  Erie  would  impede  the  enter- 
prises of  the  Confeflerates.  but  that  such  increased  force 
should  not  be  permanent.' 

On  the  day  of  the  November  election  (leneral  lUitler  and 
General  J.  R.  Hawley,  with  seven  thousand  men  as  a  ]^r<'cau- 
tionary  measure,  were  placed  upon  lake  steamers  readv  for 
service  at  any  point  in  case  Confederates  or  Confederate  sym- 
pathizers should  attempt  to  execute  any  of  the  reported  plots. 
Nothinjj  occurred  to  make  their  service  necessary. 

Reports  of  plots  continued,  thou,<:^h  it  was  evident  that  they 
had  decreased  in  importance.'  Re])orted  Confederate  vessels 
were  searched  for.  but  could  not  be  found.  Conunander 
Carter,  of  the  Micliii^aii,  thoup;ht  that  rumors  were  issued 
merely  to  scare  the  people.'  Major-Ceneral  I  looker,  in  a  tel- 
ejirram  to  .Mayor  Farpo.  of  Buffalo,  complained  of  receiving 
so  little  that  was  reliable,  and  became  scei)tical  as  to  the  accu- 
racy of  the  information.* 

Still,  there  was  reason  for  vigilance,  for  since  the  people 
had  so  strongly  supported  the  Lincoln  administration  at  the 
polls  the  Confederates  saw  the  approaching  doom  of  their 
cause,  and  in  order  to  give  themselves  a  chance  to  get  new 


'  Lomlon  Times,  Dec.  19,   1864. 
^67  Domestic  Lcttt-rs,  Nov.  n. 
'  Miscellaneous  Letters,  Nov.  16. 
^Buffalo  Courier,  Nov.  16. 


Agitation  of  Lake  Defenses  During  Civil  liar.      157 

breath  tlicv  wore  iintiriii^'  in  tlii-ir  efforts  to  involve  the 
United  States  in  foreif^ii  (iifficulties.  Major-deneral  Dix 
heard  of  "rebels  drillincf  north  of  Lake  Ontario,"  and  also 
saw  "indications  of  retaliation"  on  the  part  of  American  citi- 
zens.' Thonj^hts  of  war  with  ICni^land  had  become  familiar. 
People  complained  that  the  i)rivateers  which  swept  the 
American  commerce  from  the  seas  were  l"n{;(li>h-bniU  and 
Enjji^lish-manned.''  Detroit  believed  that  further  raids  were 
being  planned  in  Canada,  and  petitioned  Conj^'ress  for 
"staiiiich  and  stronj;-  vessels"  to  pn;tect  the  cities  and  ship- 
ping of  the  lakes.' 

There  was  intense  feeling  south  of  the  lakes,  both  natural 
and  artificial,  when  Congress  met  in  December,  .\ction  at 
Washington  was  prompt  and  energetic.  Mr.  Seward  asked 
the  .Secretary  of  the  Navy  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
if  they  desired  legislation  fcjr  additional  naval  armament 
upon  the  lakes.'  The  .Secret. iry  of  the  Xavy  thought  that 
since  the  notice  had  been  given  to  terminate  the  .Agreement 
of  1817  it  would  be  well  to  have  two  or  three  atlditional  ves- 
sels ujjon  the  lakes,  though  he  had  not  yet  submitted  esti- 
mates for  e.xtra  expenditures  in  that  (juarter.  Senator  Sher- 
man introduced  a  bill  for  si.x  lunv  revenue  cutters.  He  had 
been  out  in  (  )hio  when  the  /'///Vo  /'(/r.vo/i.s*  was  captured, 
and  he  decided  to  prevent  such  another  "close  shave"  for  the 
lake  traffic.  The  twi)  steamers  which  had  been  chartered  in 
September  "to  prevent  snniggling"  were  no  longer  in  the 
government  service.''  h  was  felt  that  in  order  to  guard  the 
long  lake  coast,  vigilance  was  required.  It  was  understood 
that  the  cutters  were  to  be  armed  with  a  small  pivot  gun. 
This  was  not  sui)posed  to  be  in  violation  of  existing  treaties.' 


\r. 


'  Dix  U)  Staiilt)!!,  Nuv.  22. 

■'Goldwin  Smith's  Lecture  :it  Huston,  Dec,  1S64. 

•'.SelKite  Doc.  2,  .vS-2,  Vol.  I,  DlT.  ,S. 

*  Domestic  Letters,  Vol.  67,  Dec.  g. 

'"  Miscell.ineous  Letters,  Dec.  14. 

"  Report  on  .Senate  Bill  350. 

'  Coiij;ressional  Cilul)e,  3'S  j,  I'art  i,  p.  57. 


it 


i 


I  1 


« 


* 


M 


i  ■■ 


5 

1  ". 


■li' 


158 


NeulralHy  of  the  American  Lakes. 


Passion  was  aroiisvd  i.-ii  DccciiihcT  14  I)y  the  luws  that  the 
Canada  courts  had  released  the  St.  Albans  raiders.  Senattjr 
Chandler,  of  Michigan,  proposed  in  Congress  that  troops 
be  sent  to  defend  the  northern  frontier  from  raids  from  Can- 
ada.' On  December  15  the  House  passed  a  bill  to  terminate 
the  Reciprocity  Treaty.  Senator  Sunnier  also  called  for  in- 
formation coticcrning  the  Agreement  of  181 7,  with  a  view  of 
terminating  it  by  proper  legislation.  The  State  Department 
issued  an  order  rerpiiring  that  all  travelers  from  Canada  to 
the  United  States,  except  innnigrants,  should  obtain  miss- 
ports  from  the  United  States  consuls.''  On  December  10.  in 
discussing  a  bill  for  the  defense  of  the  northern  frontier.  Sen- 
ator Howard,  of  Michigan,  said  that  the  "lion  must  show  his 
teeth  on  this  side  of  the  border  in  order  to  preserve  the 
peace"  and  to  prevent  Canada  from  being  a  place  of  refuge 
for  the  Confederates.  Senator  Sherman  referred  to  the  ine- 
qualities of  the  Agreement  of  18 17,  and  said  that  Congress 
should  give  the  President  power  to  place  a  necessary  force 
upon  the  lakes.  Senattir  Sunnier  spoke  of  the  Agreement 
of  1817  as  an  "anomalous,  abnormal,  .  .  .  small  type  ar- 
rangement," whose  origin  and  history  and  character  were 
still  subjects  of  doubt,  and  he  thought  the  Sena*  v  oi.  sily 
abrogate  it  if  necessary.  Mr.  Farwell  sni  '  was  no  lued 
for  alarm;  that  the  United  States  in  i  .var  could  easily 

get  entire  control  of  the  lakes  at  ai  nne  by  convt  ,Mg 
steanieio  into  war  vessels.  Mr.  GriuK-  aid  '  reat  Britain 
had  no  vessels  which  could  pass  to  the  lakes. 

There  was  anxiety  all  along  the  border.  Conservative 
newspapers  admitted  that  there  was  danger  of  a  crisis.  The 
Detroit  Free  Press  said:  "We  are  drifting  into  a  war  with 
England,"  and  favored  non-intercourse  with  Canada  until 
Canada  could  enact  proper  neutrality  laws.  Detroit  and 
other  cities  began  to  urge  the  advantage  of  their  location  as 


'  Senate  Misc.  Doc.  5,  3R-2,  Vol.  8. 

''■  19  Instructions,  pp.  549-551,  Dec.  19,  No.  1194. 


ai 
a 


W( 


'\gHatio7i  of  Lake  Defenses  During  Ch'it  War.      1G9 


a  site  for  a  naval  depot.'     'Phc  Toronto  Ix-ader  beijan  to 
philosophize  upon  how  iinioh  of  the  r.avaj,'e  still  remained  in 
man  to  prevent  mutual  disarnianicnt  from  leadinf^j  to  lastinj:^ 
results.'    The  attitude  of  the  American  Government  seemed 
to  indicate  that  the  United  States  would  have  a  lake  fleet  by 
April,  and  the  T>eader  het^^an  to  advocate  the  enlari,H'nient  of 
the  Canadian  canals  so  I'.rilish  vessels  could  be  taken  into 
the  lakes.    It  was  stated  that  the  Americans  had  not  observed 
the  spirit  of  the  Agreement  of  1817  for  three  years.    As  the 
year  closed  it  was  rei)orted  at  Toronto  that  fifty  thousand 
Fenians  were  ready  to  march  upon  Canada  at  a  day's  notice.* 
h'ebruary  9.  while  Congress  had  been  "showinp^  its  teeth" 
by  energetic  action,  the  news  of  preparations  for  incursions 
of  Confederates  from  Canada  had  not  ceased,  but  the  border 
feeling  was  gradually  becoming  less  aggressive.     After  the 
Dix  order  was  revoked,  Mr.  lUirnley  thought  all  would  get 
along  smoothly  if  the  public  could  be  kept  from  getting  too 
"rampagious."*    It  soon  became  evident  that  the  naval  depot 
which  Wisconsin  wanted  at  Milwaukee  would  not  be  needed.* 
The  Agreement  of  1817  was  finally  abrogated  by  Congress 
in  I'^ebruary,  but  the  scare  upon  the  lakes  was  already  over, 
and  it  does  not  appear  that  there  was  any  intention  of  placing 
a  naval  establishment  there.    The  action  c  f  Congress  seems 
to  have  originated  in  the  idea  that  legislative  sanction  was 
necessary  to  make  executive  acts  legal.     When  the  subject 
was  imder  discussion  in  the  House  on  January  18,  Mr.  Far- 
well  and  others  thought  that  useless  vessels  upon  the  lakes 
were  "more  likely  to  involve  us  in  trouble  with  Great  Britain 
than  to  do  us  any  good,"  and  though  they  voted  to  ratify  the 
notice  previously  given  by  the  State  Department  for  abro- 
gation of  the  Agreement  of  1817,  they  hoped  that  the  Presi- 
dent would  at  an  early  date  "institute  proceedings  or  a  com- 
niission  with  Great  Britain  to  renew  the  arrangement." 


'  Detroit  Free  /'ress,  Dec.  16. 

'  Toronto  Leader^  Dec.  16. 

■'  Toronto  Leader,  December  .^o. 

*  74  Notes  to  State  Department,  Dec.  20. 

'Senate  Misc.  Doc.  41,  3S-2,  Vol.  i,  Feb.  20, 


s 


t 
> 

A' 


'1 


1 


:■)" 


m 


J     J! 

I'M 

il 


160 


Neutrality  of  the  Ametican   Lakes. 


i  1 


']"lic  need  of  war  vessels  on  tlie  lakes  was  still  urj^ed  by 
some,  especially  by  those  who  hoped  to  iiuliice  the  United 
States  (iovernnient  to  enpa^e  in  buildintj  ship  canals  to  join 
the  la'«es  with  the  Mississippi.  (Jne  member  said  in  Con- 
gress (I'ebruary  i)  that  the  United  Stales  hail  fifty  million 
dollars  invested  in  war  steamers  on  the  Mississip])i.  and  that 
for  one-tenth  that  anKumt  a  canal  conld  be  dwj::,  so  that  they 
might  be  taken  to  the  lakes  for  preservation  in  fresh  water. 
There  were  still  others  who  said  that  "the  two  thonsand  ships 
bearing  the  teeming  productions  of  the  west  ni)on  the  bosom 
of  the  lakes"  retjuired  more  than  (jne  war  ship  for  their  pro- 
tection. There  was  probably  some  reason  f(jr  this  statement 
just  at  this  time,  for  it  -'lipears  that  ( ireat  Britain,  alarmed 
by  the  proceedings  in  i 'ongress,  was  preparing  to  send  guns 
"to  arm  new  naval  forces  op  the  lakes." 

The  policy  of  the  IJritish  i'arliamenl  was  as  yet  uncertain. 
Its  tuembers  wiTe  not  yet  assured  that  the  United  States  did 
not  desire  total  abrogation  of  the  Agreement  of  iH\j.'  Lord 
Palmerston  announced  to  the  House  of  C'onmions,  however, 
on  bebruary  ii,  that  "the  abrogation  \)i  that  arrangement 
was  not  to  be  considered  a  fmal  decision  but  as  open  to  re- 
newal." and  that  the  House  was  not  justified  in  looking  upon 
the  matter  as  an  indication  of  intended  hostilities  on  the  part 
of  the  United  States.  He  added:  "We  cannot  deny  that 
things  did  lake  place  of  which  the  United  States  were  justly 
entitled  to  complain,  and  if  the  measures  which  they  have 
recourse  to  are  sim])iy  calculated,  as  they  say,  for  the  pro- 
tecti(jn  of  their  commerce  and  their  citizens,  I  think  they 
are  perfectly  justified  in  having  recourse  to  them." 

Public  sentiment  for  the  Confederates  began  to  decrease 
after  the  news  of  the  storming  of  b'ort  Fisher  and  the  closing 
of  navigation  to  Wilmington;  the  friends  of  the  United 
States  (iovermnent  gained  at  London."  Tlie  aspect  in  Can- 
ada had  become  peaceful.      M  the  reconnnendation  of  the 

'  l'aili.iini:iUiir>  UcbiUcs,   \'ol.  177,  p.    142.     Luiiuon    /'iwes,   l'el>. 

■-' SS  l)(.'spalilies.  No.  .S6S,  Fel).  2,  I^b5. 

•' Deliuit -■/^.■r///.ve;(/«(/  Jribiiue,  ]i\\\.  27,  1865. 


Agiialion  of  Lake  Defenses  During  Civil  War.      161 


Government  of  Great  Britain,  Canada  passed  an  act  on  Feb- 
ruary 6  to  repress  outrages  iji  violation  of  the  jieace  on  the 
frontier.'  The  London  Times  bep^an  to  alter  its  tone.  Lord 
Russell  spoke  in  a  better  spirit.  Conferences  with  .Mr. 
Adams  were  more  friendly.  Mason,  Slidell  and  Mann,  the 
Confederate  ajjents  in  Europe,  were  notified  that  such  prac- 
tice as  had  been  goinj^  on  from  Canada  and  acknowledged  by 
President  Davis  as  belligerent  operations  must  cease."  Ca- 
nadian papers  stated  that  measures  would  be  taken  to  pre- 
vent the  danger  of  a  war  in  which  the  Confederates  were  try- 
ing to  involve  us. 

Still,  there  was  at  this  time  an  undercurrent  of  much  rest- 
lessness and  distrust  in  l^ngland  on  account  of  the  fear  of 
large  impending  claims,  and  of  an  American  war  for  the  con- 
quest of  Canada  after  domestic  reconciliation  had  been  se- 
cured.'  This  fear  was  fanned  by  Confederate  emissaries,  who 
said  that  if  forced  into  the  Union  they  would  favor  war  with 
England.  The  disposition  of  Congress  to  terminate  treaties 
also  nourished  a  feeling  that  the  United  States  was  unfriendly 
to  England.  On  February  20,  when  the  defenses  of  Canada 
were  l)eing  considered  in  the  House  of  Lords,  there  was 
much  talk  of  the  contest  of  the  North  for  empire  and  the 
need  of  cmmter-preparations  on  the  lakes  to  offset  those 
made  by  the  United  States,  which  they  said  were  in  violation 
of  treaty  stipulations. 

'Ihe  del)ates  in  the  Canadian  Provincial  rarliament  at  this 
time  indicate  that  there  was  a  feeling  of  danger  from  the 
L^nited  States,  and  an  expectation  tliat  fleets  would  again 
travirse  the  lakes.    On  March  2,  Mr.  liaultain  said: 

"I  am  glad  to  see  that  the  American  Government  have 
given  notice  <>f  tluir  intention  to  terminate  the  convention 
for  not  keeping  armed  vessels  on  the  lakes.  I  am  glad  to  see 
that  this  is  to  be  put  an  end  to,  for  it  was  decidedly  prejudicial 
to  our  interests,  and  1  have  no  doubt  we  shall  have  gi,mi)oats 

'  Canada  Gazelle,  Feb.  6.     Also,  7.,  Notes  lo  State  Department. 
^SS  Despatches,  Nos.  874  and  879.  Feb.  10  and  Feb.  16. 
'  88  Despatches,  No.  870,  Feb.  9. 

11 


162 


Neulraliiy  of  the  American  Lakes. 


on  our  lakes  before  the  end  of  the  present  year.  .  .  .  There 
is  no  question  that  should  they  determine  upon  p^oincr  to 
war  with  us  before  the  ojjeninj;  of  navigation,  we  might  not 
be  able  to  get  a  British  gunboat  on  our  waters  by  the  St. 
Lawrence  canals,  as  they  are  so  easily  accessible  to  our  op- 
ponents, and,  without  much  difficulty  could  bo  rendered  use- 
less for  navigation."' 

The  Montreal  Gazette  urged  the  necessity  of  a  connection 
between  Montreal  and  Lake  Huron  by  the  Ottawa  and 
French  rivers  and  Lake  Nipissing,  so  that  the  British  navy 
could  i^ass  to  the  lak'es  with  safety  and  ])revcnt  Canada  froui 
being  "exposed  to  an  irruption  of  Americans  only  surpassed 
by  that  of  the  Huns  and  Cloths.'"  "Were  this  canal  in  exist- 
ence," it  is  staterl,  "gun-vessels  could  sail  from  England  di- 
rect into  Lake  Huron,  and  thence  they  might  operate  on 
Lake  Michigan,  gaining  access  through  the  straits  of  Macki- 
naw. Small  ironclads  could  run  the  gauntlet  down  the  St. 
Clair  and  Detroit  rivers  into  Lake  Erie  at  Kingston  and  the 
Ridean  canal.  Mackinaw  wouid  thus  become  comparatively 
useless  to  the  Americans,  and  Lake  Michigan  would  be 
scaled  by  a  British  blockading  squadron."  Mr.  Kingston, 
in  his  "Canadian  Canals,"  says  that  this  canal  was  not  urged 
for  mere  defensive  purposes,  but  that  the  motive  was  to 
obtain  a  connnercial  canal  at  the  expense  of  the  government 
by  revivifying  national  prejudices. 

It  was  evident  that  something  should  be  done  to  combat 
the  feeling  that  the  United  States  had  hostile  designs  ac'iinst 
Canada.  Lord  Russell  suggested  that  it  was  time  to  think 
of  something  to  take  the  place  of  the  Agreement  of  1817  be- 
fore it  should  be  terminated  by  the  notice  already  given.' 
Mr.  Adams  agrc^l  that  armaments  were  expensive,  useless 
and  breeders  of  si.spicion,  and  he  saw  no  reason  for  not  ron- 
tinuing  the  treaties  since  the  active  efforts  of  the  Canadian 
authorities. 


*  Canadian   Provincial  Parlia.  Debates  (on  confederation)  p.  639, 
Marcli  2,  1S65. 
'■'  Moutreal  Gazette,  March  14,  1865. 
"88  Uespatclies,  No.  884,  Feb.  23,  1865. 


Agitation  of  Lake  Defenses  Diirinp^  Civil  War.      1(53 


( )n  March  8,  Mr.  Seward  announced  that  the  United 
Slates  had  decided  to  abide  by  the  Ajjrecment  of  1817.  The 
passport  system  was  also  to  cease  at  once.'  In  accepting  tlie 
farewell  of  Lord  Lyons  on  March  20,  Mr.  Seward  said:  "I 
have  no  doubt  that  when  tliis  dreadful  war  is  ended  the 
United  States  and  (ircat  IJritain  will  be  reconciled  and  be- 
come better  friends  than  ever."  ^ 

Before  the  news  that  the  United  States  Government  de- 
sired to  c'^jntinue  the  At^reement  of  1817  had  officially 
reached  London  there  had  been  two  debates  in  the  House  of 
Commons  in  regard  to  relations  with  the  United  States  and 
vessels  for  the  lakes.  During  the  first  debate' on  ]\Iarch  13 
a  letter  from  New  York  was  cited  as  evidence  that  the  United 
States  was  having  constructed  in  London  "a  fleet  of  gun- 
boats for  tlie  Canailian  lakes."  Some  favored  counter-prep- 
arations, and  said  it  was  no  menace  "for  a  peaceful  citizen  to 
l)ut  up  his  shutters  in  a  tumult."  Others  thought  it  foolish 
to  vie  with  .America  on  her  own  ground,  and  that  it  might  be 
best  to  defend  Canada  by  abandoning  her.  America  could 
now  carry  gunbcats  to  the  lakes  by  rail,  and  if  Canada  could 
not  be  defended  in  time  of  war  it  was  a  bad  policy  to  keep  a 
force  there  in  time  of  peace.  There  were  various  opinions 
in  regard  to  the  intentions  of  the  L'nited  States.  Mr.  Card- 
well,  the  Colonial  Secretary,  saw  "no  evidence  of  hostility." 
Lord  Palmerston  thought  that  the  tone  of  moderation  which 
was  shown  in  the  debate  would  be  useful  in  both  Canada  and 
the  United  States. 

During  this  debate  Watkins  advocated  that  the  British 
GovernmeiU  siiould  express  a  desire  for  peace  and  fraternity 
with  the  United  States,  and  should  seek  to  secure,  in  the  in- 
terests of  peace  and  civilization,  and  "as  a  bright  example  to 
surrounding  nations:" 


'  2..  histrurtions,  p.  89.  Maicli  8,  1865.  No.   1289.     National  Mel- 
ligeueer,  M.»r(li  y. 
»  13  Notes  Iroiii  State  Uep.-irUiient,  p.  189. 
•■'  I'arlia.  Duliatts,  Vol.  177. 


...    ill! 

if 


*     ^^'11 


■■Am 


i  ft*  5 


!i 


: 


164 


Neutralily  of  the  American  Lakes. 


1.  A  neutralization  of  the  three  thousand  miles  of  frontier. 

retulcring  fortifications  needless. 

2.  A  continuance  of  the  neutrality  of  the  lakes  and  rireis 
bordcrinpf  upon  the  two  territories. 

3.  Connnon  navij;ation  of  the  lakes  and  outlets  of  the  s«a. 

4.  Enlargement  of  canals  for  commerce. 

5.  Neutrality  of  telegraphs  and  post  routes  between  iJk' 
Atlantic  and  Pacific. 

Mr.  Watkins  said:  "Let  the  P.ritish  (lovernment  be  firm  :- 
considering  Canada  a  part  of  the  Uritish  I-lmijirc,  to  be  ■<k- 
fended  at  all  cost,  or  let  them  endeavor  to  induce  the  govern- 
ment at  Washington  to  distinguish  itself  forever  by  adondi^ 
the  alternative — the  neutralization  of  the  lakes  and  the 
avoidance  of  hostile  fortifications  on  both  sides  of  the  fron- 
tier." 

The  results  of  rash  speeches  in  the  House  of  Lords  were 
being  neutralized  by  the  wisdom  of  such  men  as  Fitz^perald 
and  Disraeli  in  the  Commons.  Lord  Russell  was  al?<»  U5iii$^ 
his  intluence  to  create  a  better  feeling.  On  March  2},,  when 
he  laid  before  the  Lords  the  notice  for  the  termination  of  the 
Reciprocity  Treaty,  he  encouraged  moderation  by  stating 
there  was  hope  of  new  treaties  during  the  year.  In  reaan! 
to  the  Agreement  of  1817,  he  said  that  the  recent  occurrcirece* 
on  the  lakes  justified  the  United  States  in  availing  them- 
selves of  all  the  nieau:,  of  rej)ression  within  their  power-  Mr. 
Adams'  language  had  led  liim  to  feel  assured  that  C'0<P'''nncsi> 
would  be  ready  to  consider  a  proposition  by  which  a  "fmaH 
and  limited  armament  might  be  kept  up  on  the  lakes  forjxiiir- 
poses  of  police  on  both  sides." 

On  March  23  the  whole  question  of  .\merican  relatkm* 
and  Canadian  defenses  was  again  debated  in  the  Commons.' 
During  the  debates.  Mr.  Cardwell  received  a  dis]':  •  '  '-  - 
Canada  stating  that  the  I'niled  States  intended  to  »\;ijj-:^-v 
the  notice  for  the  abrogation  of  the  .Agreement  of  J817.  "Die 
news  that  the  United  States  would  abide  by  the  agreement, 

'  Parliamentary  Debates,  Vol.  178. 


Aq;itation  of  Lake  Defenses  Duriti^  Civil  War.      165 

and  tliat  the  passport  system  on  the  Canadian  border  had 
been  abandoned,  created  a  pood  effect  both  in  F-njjland  and 
in  Canada.  Tliere  was  even  well-grounded  hope  for  a  new 
reciprocity  treaty.  Mr.  Cardwell.  the  Colonial  Secretary, 
announced  the  decision  of  the  London  riovernmcnt  also  to 
abide  by  the  arranj^enient  of  1817.  Gradually,  members  of 
Parliament  turned  from  fortifications,  and  becran  to  advocate 
I)Ians  for  encourajjiufr  the  settlement  of  Canada.  The  lontsf- 
tried  jilan  which  had  prevented  a  competition  of  expenditure 
upon  the  historic  waterways  was  still  considered  a  ])recedent 
worthy  of  imitaticjn.  The  fact  that  the  slave  Confederacy 
was,  notwithstanding::  forn-ier  jirophccies  of  I'ritish  states- 
men, now  in  its  death-strufjfjlc.  no  lonjjcr  rendered  it  neces- 
sary for  the  United  States  to  adoi)t  stringent  measures  for  the 
preservation  of  the  nation.  Xeither  Knjjjland  nor  .America 
desired  to  embark  into  a  policy  of  non-intercourse  and  armed 
froiUiers,  but  rather  to  decrease  the  national  prejudices 
which  frowninjT  fortresses  would  only  serve  to  nourish. 

There  was  ati  ambii^uity  in  .\Ir.  Seward's  note  of  March  8 
wiiich  mif^Iil  have  caused  misapprehension  as  to  whether  the 
previous  abroLjation  ha<l  been  rendered  intjperative.'  This 
led  to  some  further  correspondence  between  the  two  trov- 
ernments.     In  Mr.  Seward's  note  to  Mr.  .\dams  he  had  said: 

"Vou  may  say  to  Lord  Russell  that  we  are  (piite  willinsj 
that  the  convention  should  remain  practically  in  force;  that 
this  jjovernment  has  not  constructed  or  connnenced  building 
any  additif)nal  war  vessils  on  the  lakes  or  added  to  the  arma- 
ment of  the  single  one  which  was  previously  its  property; 
and  that  no  such  vessel  will  in  future  be  built  or  armed  by  us 
in  that  (piarter.  It  is  hoped  and  exi)ected.  h«jwevet,  that  Her 
Majesty's  (jovernment.  on  its  part,  so  long  as  this  determi- 
nation shall  be  observed  in  good  faith  by  that  of  the  I'nited 
States,  will  neither  construct  nor  arm  nor  introduce  armed 
vessels  in  excess  of  the  force  stipulated  for  by  the  conver.tion 
referred  to." 


'  20  Instructions,  No.  1:89,  p.  S9. 


v.':'5i 


..fi.1 


•■  ''■•  -^ 


'\m 


166 


Ncrtralitv  of  the  Atnrriran  Lai-rs. 


'ii 


1"1h'  British  Ciovc-^rnnicnt  was  apparently  not  satisfied  with 
the  wordinf^  of  this  note,  and  on  June  15,  1865,  the  liritisli 
minister  wrote  to  Actinjj  Secretary  Hunter  to  ask  whether 
Mr.  Seward's  (hspatch  of  March  8  was  intended  as  a  formal 
withdrawal  of  the  notice  j;iven  Xovemhcr  23,  1864,  or 
whether  the  Aj;-reement  of  1817  was  now  virtually  at  an  end, 
leaving  the  matter  of  disarmament  resting  merely  upon  the 
good  pleasure  of  each  i)arty.'  "In  the  latter  case,"  he  said, 
"a  very  inconvenient  state  of  thint^fs  would  exist,"  and  he 
was  directed  to  say  that  in  the  opinion  of  I  lor  Majesty's  Gov- 
crnnient  the  best  course  would  he  foruial  withdrawal  of  the 
notice  of  November  23,  1864.  On  June  16,  1865,  Mr.  Seward 
answered  that  the  dispatch  of  March  8  was  intevided  as  a 
withdrawal  of  the  previous  notice  within  the  time  allowed, 
and  that  it  is  so  held  by  the  (kn'crnment  of  the  United 
States.'  On  Autjust  19,  1865.  the  I'ritish  minister  once  more 
wrote  to  Mr.  Seward  to  say  that  his  government  understood 
from  the  notice  that  the  agreement  contained  in  the  con- 
vention of  18 1 7  v.ould  continue  in  force  luiless  it  should 
be  thereafter  terminated  by  a  fresh  six  months'  notice."  On 
August  22.  1865,  Mr.  Seward  replied  that  (he  statement  of 
Her  Majesty's  Government  was  accepted  as  a  correct  inter- 
pretation of  the  intention  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States. 

There  was  some  further  corresi)on(lence  soon  after  in  re- 
gard to  rcvemu'  cutters,  which  was  significant  at  this  time. 
November  3,  1865,  .Mr.  I'.ruce  asked  explanations  as  to  sev- 
eral vessels  which  had  recently  been  built  by  the  United 
States  for  the  lakes.  Seward  replied  November  4  that  they 
were  for  revenue  purposes,  and  that  their  armament  would 
not  exceed  the  limit  stipulated  in  1817.*  The  prodigious  de- 
velopment of  physical  power  in  the  United  States  continued 
for  a  time  to  be  a  source  of  some  alarm  both   in   Canada 


'  78  Notes  to  Sl;ite  Dep.-irtinciit. 

■•'  i,^  Notes  from  State  I)i'|).irtmtjnt,  p.  35«,  j»ne  16. 

•'7.S  Notes  to  State  I  )ei).irtiiuiU. 

*  13  Notes  from  Slate  Department,  p.  438. 


Ai^ifalion  of  Lake  Defenses  During  Civil  War.      167 


and  F.njjfland.  \\h\\  the  fall  ')f  the  Confederacy  there  was 
fear  tliat  idle  sokhcrs  would  threaten  Canada.  In  Canada  the 
danp^cr  from  the  United  States  had  been  used  as  an  arijument 
in  favor  of  the  International  Railway  and  the  confederation 
of  the  P.ritish  provinces.  Members  of  Parliament  felt  that  the 
contitniance  of  the  bond  with  Canada  depended  partly  upon 
the  p^ood-will  of  the  I'nited  States,  and  they  were  not  so  sure 
that  the  .American  policy  of  extension  was  not  one  of  con- 
quest. They  sometimes  mistook  the  momentary  utterances 
of  swapfperincf  officers  and  dcmap^of^ues  for  the  abidincr  will 
of  the  threat  American  people.  Territtjrial  as't;raudizi.'ment 
has  never  been  the  jiassion  of  the  North. 

It  is  doubtless  true  that  at  the  close  of  the  Civil  War  many 
in  the  United  States  thoutjht  that  in  a  few  years  Canada 
would  be  constrained  for  conmiercial  reasons  to  knock  for 
admission  into  tlie  .American  L'nion,  but  it  would  have  been 
a  departure  from  the  .American  policy  to  annex  Canada  by 
force.  In  the  heat  of  excitement  the  press  often  assumed  a 
threateiiiiij.,'  tone,  and  "colonels"  for  effect  referred  to  tl>c 
boundaries  which  "(iod  .\lmij;hty  had  established,"  reaching 
to  the  .Aurora  Porealis  on  the  north;  Fenians  organized  to 
carry  the  green  llag  into  Canada,  and  a  congressman  moved 
to  grant  them  the  right  of  belligerents;  but  if  the  government 
may  be  said  to  have  had  any  policy  in  regard  to  Canada  it 
was  certainly  not  one  of  forcii)le  incorporation.  Its  forcible 
incorporation  could  only  have  brought  an  element  of  disaf- 
fection into  the  nation.  The  disbanding  of  vast  armies  at  the 
close  of  the  Civil  War,  leaving  irritating  difTerenccs  with 
Fngland  to  be  settled  by  diploniacv  was  a  triumph  of  the 
American  princijjle.  Stump  orat(jrs  had  pandered  to  .Anglo- 
phobia, I'.ritish  peers  luul  harangued.  .American  and  IJritish 
papers  had  screamed  for  bread,  but  the  nations  did  not  go 
mad.  The  common-sense  of  the  people  and  the  wisdom  of 
their  governnieiUs  prevailed,  and  the  countries  were  not 
plunged  into  disastrous  war. 


n 


VII. 


|!<ii>' 


AFTER  THE   STORM. 

The  Adjustment  of    Irritat[NO  Questions   and   the 
Continuation  of  the  Agreement  of  1817. 

.^ftcr  the  four  years  of  fiplitinj;  oti  bloody  battlefields  the 
Father  of  Waters  flowed  inivexed  to  the  sea,  with  both  its 
mouth  and  its  springs  in  the  control  of  one  nationality. 
After  the  shock  of  civil  conflict  had  ended,  a  united  people, 
without  slavery,  stood  with  a  conndence  born  of  e\])eric'nce 
ready  to  meet  the  problems  of  the  future.  The  struj^ij^le  of 
interests  had  developed  character  and  thoufjht.  Durinjj^  the 
tempestuous  reign  of  Andrew  Johnson  there  was  some  fear 
that  the  strength  of  the  nation  would  lead  it  into  an  ofYcnsive 
foreign  policy.  That  the  I'nited  .States  (lovernmeiU  had  no 
such  policy  in  view  is  seen  by  the  promptness  with  which  dis- 
armament was  secured  after  the  long  struggle.  The  expul- 
sion of  the  French  from  Mexico  and  the  purcha.sc  of  Alaska 
were  not  inspired  by  the  desire  of  dominion. 

The  feeling  which  had  been  engendered  against  I'Jigland 
during  the  war,  however,  led  I'cnians  and  others  to  hone  for 
a  chance  to  invade  England's  dominions.  In  May,  1865.  the 
report  of  a  scheme  to  annex  Canada  was  brought  to  the  at- 
tention of  the  State  Department  l>y  Mr.  Ilruce,  of  the  I'ritish 
legation.'  ( )ne  Cieorge  \V.  ( libbons  had  advertised  in  the 
lirooklyn  I-^agle  for  three  thousand  volunteers  to  join  a 
larger  body  for  the  invasion  of  Canada  or  Mexico.  Tn  one 
of  his  letters  Mr.  Ciibbons  said:  "If  we  can  get  the  consent  of 
the  President  of  the  I'nited  Slates  we  will.  If  not.  we  will 
go  anyhow."    In  another  he  said  that  he  had  three  thousand 


'  No.  78  Notes  to  State  Department,  May  19. 


•*1 


After  the  Storm. 


\m 


men  enlisted,  and  that  the  intention  was  "to  declare  war  on 
Great  I'.ritain  hy  invasion  of  Canada."  Mr.  Hrnoe,  in  callinj? 
the  serious  attention  of  the  United  States  Government  to 
this  scheme,  was  correct  in  his  conviction  that  the  Ignited 
States  would  take  prompt  steps  to  stop  the  "audacious  pro- 
eeedinpf." 

The  I'enians  for  several  years  after  the  close  of  the  Civil 
War  continued  to  threaten  Canada.  This  organization  had 
been  in  existence  from  the  time  that  the  Irish  attempted  to 
throw  off  the  imperial  rule  of  Enp^land.  y\  branch  was 
formed  in  the  United  States  in  1857.  During:  the  Civil  War 
its  memhersliip  had  increased  fivefold.  In  June,  1866.  two 
hundred  I'enians,  under  their  leader,  O'Neill,  crossed  the 
river  some  miles  Ixlow  I'.uffalo  and  prepared  to  carry  the 
j;freen  llaj;  into  Canadian  ti  rritory.'  The  United  States  Gov- 
ernment had  sent  the  Micliij^an  to  patrol  the  river,  hut  it 
arrived  late.  Several  brave  Canadians  were  killed  while  de- 
fendini^  their  country.  The  Fenians  drove  the  Canadian  forces 
as  far  as  Kidi^^way,  but  here  their  attempt  to  invade  Canada 
ended.  The  Unite'!  States  Government  soon  took  decisive 
action.  The  lUiffalo  h'xpress  stated  that  but  for  this  fact 
fifty  thousand  I'enians  would  have  overcome  Canada.  Gen- 
eral Grant  placed  (ieneral  Berry,  with  thirteen  companies, 
in  charfje  of  the  frontier.  A  revenue  cutter  was  also  sent  to 
patrol  the  river.  It  was  felt  at  this  time  that  a  P.ritish  gun- 
boat was  "needed  in  these  waters,"  io  aid  those  of  the  United 
States  in  preventing;  another  invasion.''  The  Canadian  Gov- 
ernment was  satisfied  with  the  exertions  of  the  United  States, 
but  thoufjht  it  prudent  to  i)lace  three  or  four  steamers  on  the 
St.  Lawrence  river  and  the  lakes.  These  were  manned  by 
.sailors  from  the  war-ships  in  port  at  Montreal.  On  June  8, 
Lord  Monck  notified  the  Colonial  Secretary  as  follows: 

"With  the  assistance  of  the  ofificers  and  men  of  the  shins  of 

'  See  Ruffiilo  Express,  May  31,  1891.     Also,  O'Neill  :  Fenian  Raid 
(Odicial  Rt-port). 
'  Toronto  Weekly  Leader,  June  8,  1866. 


'\ 


170 


Neutrality  of  thr  American  Lakes. 


ij    ,! 


war  now  in  the  St.  Lawrence,  n  flotilla  of  steamers  has  been 
chartered  by  the  Provincial  ( iovernnu-iit  and  fitted  nn  as 
temporary  jijunboats  for  services  both  on  the  St.  Lawrence 
and  the  lakes.'"  On  June  19,  Lord  Monck  requested  Ad- 
miral Hope  to  detach,  if  they  could  be  spared,  four  gunboats 
"for  service  on  the  lakes  adjoinincj  the  Canadian  front,  in  the 
event  of  any  renewal  of  the  late  attack  on  the  Pro\  nice  bv  the 
Fenians."  It  appears  that  a  lar,i;e  frigate  and  a  corvette  were 
sent  to  the  St.  Lawrence  by  the  I'.ritish  Government  three 
successive  years.  In  1868  it  was  decided  tiial  no  reduction 
should  be  made  for  that  year,  though  there  was  some  doubt 
expressed  as  to  the  necessity  of  it  "as  well  as  of  the  exncdi- 
ency  of  sendinj:^  crews  ...  to  man  hired  steamers  for  the 
Canadian  Cjovennnent."* 

Fortunately,  there  was  no  further  immediate  occasion  for 
increasiinf^  the  lake  forces.  I'enianism  was  a  delusion.  As 
the  year  drew  to  a  close  it  seemed  to  be  on  the  decline.  The 
poor  laborers  and  chambermaids  were  findinjr  it  to  their  eco- 
nomic advantage  not  to  respond  \o  the  calls  to  furnish  money 
to  "liead  centres"  and  mock  "senates."  The  l-'cnians  did  not 
get  the  sympathy  tliat  they  had  expected  in  the  I'nited  States. 
Most  of  the  newspapers  opposed  their  lawlessness.  A  ram- 
pant congressman  proposed  that  thev  be  accorded  the  rights 
of  belligerents,  but  he  did  not  represent  the  great  conmion 
people  of  the  nation.  Congress  asked  the  President  to  inter- 
cede for  the  Fenians  who  had  been  taken  prisoners  in  Can- 
ada, and  after  their  release  they  were  not  ]>rosecuted  in  the 
United  States;^  but  this  was  done  because  it  was  felt  to  be  the 
most  efficient  policy  at  that  time,  to  bring  the  affair  to  an  end. 
The  government  took  a  firm  stand  against  violation  of  the 
peace.  The  postmaster  of  Buffalo,  who  was  a  i'cnian,  was 
promptly  removed  from  otfice  by  President  Johnson.* 


•  Corr-  spomlence  RdatiiiK  lo  Keniaii  Invasions  and  Rebellion  of 
Sontht-rn  Mates,  p.  141.     AIsd,  st-e  pa^e  145. 

'lb.      .  p    164 

'  H    Do-.  i,S4  39-r.  Vol.  16,  Uily  26,  iSr,6. 

*  Toronto  Weekly  Leader,  Aug.  31,  1866. 


ft 


After  I  he  Slorm. 


171 


It  would  l)c  liai'd  to  say  what  were  all  the  clcnuMits  f)f  the 
American  pfjlitical  fcrliiiji^  coiuxrniii};  Canada  at  this  time. 
It  is  safe  to  say  that  there  was  no  intention  of  plnnji^intr  the 
country  into  another  war  hy  invading-  a  foreij,Mi  country, 
'i'licri-  was  no  general  desire  to  appropriate  forcibly  fc-'  ii.ni 
territory.  Only  in  case  of  war  with  I'nj,dand  was  there  any 
danj^er  of  the  L'nited  States  strikini^^  a  blow  at  Canada, 
'ihere  was,  however,  an  impression  that  the  disadvantafjes 
followinj;  the  abrot^ation  of  the  Recijjrocity  Treaty  would 
cause  the  Canadians  to  apply  for  admission  to  the  United 
.States.  The  Chicaf;:o  Tribtme,  in  jamiary,  i(Sr>6,  said;  "The 
Canadians  will  soon  discover  that  free  trade  and  snuij^^trling 
will  not  compensate  them  for  the  loss  of  the  Recijjrocity 
Treaty.  They  will  stay  out  in  the  cold  for  a  few  years,  and 
try  all  sorts  of  expedients,  but  in  the  end  will  be  constrained 
to  knock  for  admission  into  the  (ireat  Republic."'  in  I'eb- 
ruary,  1866,  when  commissioners  from  Canada  ventured  to 
suy;pcst  before  a  conpfressional  committee  at  Washinr'ton 
that  it  would  be  to  the  advantajje  of  both  countries  if  the 
interveniu}^  waterways  were  neutralized  in  re^-ard  to  com- 
nierci',  Mr.  .Morrill,  the  chairman  of  the  conn.iittee,  said: 
"That  will  have  to  be  postponed  until  you,  gentlemen,  as- 
sume your  seats  here." 

The  big  ideas  in  reganl  to  the  "manifest  destiny"  of  the 
United  States  which  had  been  expressed  by  I'olk  in  1844. 
and  lJ()U.L;las  in  1858,  had  not  ceased  with  the  fall  of  sla^-cry. 
In  1866,  one  could  hear  talk  in  favor  of  "admitting  liritish 
America  into  the  American  I'nion  as  four  separate  States." 
In  l)ecend)er  of  that  jear,  Thaddeus  Stevens,  in  a  public 
meeting  at  Washington,  said  tliat  the  United  States  would 
embrace  the  continent.  .Some  American  politicians,  after 
the  purchase  of  Alaska,  spoke  of  hemming  in  the  possessions 
of  Clreat  liritain  by  the  purchase  of  (Ireenland.  Discussions 
over  the  Alahainn  claims,  and  over  other  (piestions  which 
had  kept  animosities  alive,  naturally  led  to  a  consideration 


'  C/iicitffo  Tribune,  Jan.  6,  1.S66. 


m 


•:f] 


-  -.'M 


'^}V^ 


M' 


k2<ii 


:r 


179 


Ncutralitv  of  the  American  Lakes. 


\ 


i  i 


of  tlic  rilaticiii  of  (aiiada  in  rasi-  of  a  war.  It  was  not  a  time 
favoraMf  for  tlic  nrj,u»tiation  of  a  new  rccii)rocity  treaty.  Mr. 
Cliandk-r,  of  Michigan,  in  tlu-  heated  debates  of  iH(k).  said 
that  I'lnf,'Iand  shouUl  .t,Mve  up  Canada  to  tlie  United  States, 
and  ann(»unc-e(l  tliat  sixty  thousand  .Michij.;;anders  were 
ready  to  overrun  it.  In  1X70,  Senator  i'onieroy  olTereil  a 
resolution  in  favor  of  iiKniirinjLT  into  the  e.\])e(lienoy  of  ii"<ro- 
tiatinj.j  with  ( ireat  iJritain  ooneerninj^  the  ainnxation  of 
Canada.' 

l-'or  two  or  three  years  before  the  Treaty  of  WashinLTtoii 
in  1S71  tliere  was  a  revival  of  henian  h(Ji)es  for  tiie  invasion 
of  Canada.  In  iXrHj-70  there  were  various  rumors  of  their 
projects.  On  March  3,  1870,  tlie  United  States  District  .At- 
torney f(jr  Xorthern  Xew  York  notified  the  (iovernnient  at 
\\  ashin;.;^ton  tiiat  he  had  information  of  a  proposed  con- 
certed movement  against  C  anada  at  several  points  npot'  the 
frontier,  and  he  thoii}.^ht  it  was  advisable  "to  place  the  United 
States  steamer  Midw^im  and  the  reveiuie  cutters  upon  the 
lakes,  in  such  condition  that  they  could  jjo  into  commission 
upon  short  notice.'"  Rumors  of  this  kind  were  so  common 
at  the  time  that  not  much  importance  was  attached  to  them. 
By  an  act  of  Congress  the  lake  revenue  cutters  had  been  laid 
uj)  for  about  three  years,  and  could  not  have  been  made  avail- 
able without  expensive  repairs.  The  M icliii^ciii,  however, 
could  have  been  prepared  for  active  service  as  soon  as  the 
ice  was  sufficiently  broken  for  navij.jation.'  The  ^ujvernment 
evidently  did  not  deem  it  necessary  to  increase  the  forces  on 
the  lake  frontier.  The  President  soon  found  it  necessaf-  to 
issue  a  proclamation  apaiust  the  I'euians,  however.  There 
was  an  attempted  invasion  of  Canada  by  five  hundred  men 
from  \'ermont  in  May,  but  the  attack  was  frustrated.    Dur- 


wi 


'  Misc.  Dor.  140,  41-2,  May  19.  1870. 

'  Miscellaiifous  Li'tU;rs,  Marcli  7,  1870.  Attorney  (ieiieral  Hoar  to 
Secretary  l-'isli,  enclosure. 

'  Miscellaneous  Letters,  March  10,  1S70.  .Stcretary  of  Treasury 
Boiitwell  to  .Secretary  of  State  l-'isli.  Also,  Secretary  of  Navy  to 
Secretary  of  Slate. 


^i' 


After  the  Storm. 


178 


iiip  the  next  year  Canada  had  to  rail  <»iit  troops  at  thnr  dif- 
ferent times  in  order  to  defend  the  frontier  from  threatened 
attacks  of  the  I'enians,'  and  there  was  sonu?  complaint  that 
the  United  States  had  not  heen  vij^ilant  enonj^di  in  preventing 
the  organization  of  lawless  hands. 

After  lonj^  nej^otiations  the  amicable  settlement  of  irritat- 
infj  (juestions  between  i'.nf^land  and  the  L'nited  States  was 
finally  arranj^ed  by  the  Treaty  of  Washington  in  1871.  It 
provided  for  the  arbitration  of  claims  of  the  L'nited  States 
ajj^ainst  (ireat  I'ritain  for  the  daniatje  done  by  Confederate 
vessels  fitted  out  in  l''.U}.;lisli  ])orts  durinj^  the  Civil  War.  It 
also  provided  for  the  settlement  of  claims  against  the  l'nited 
States  on  account  of  the  interference  of  .Vmeri'  an  fishermen 
in  Canadian  waters  since  the  abrojjation  of  the  Reciprocity 
Treaty.  There  were  various  clauses  in  the  treaty  which  di- 
rectly afifected  the  relations  between  Canada  ami  the  l'nited 
States.  It  provided  for  a  clearer  definition  of  the  north- 
western boundary.  The  navigation  of  the  St.  Lawrence  was 
to  be  forever  free  and  open,  for  counuercial  purposes,  to  the 
citizens  of  the  United  States.  .\s  an  e(|uivaleiU  for  certain 
fishing  rights  on  the  coast,  lirilish  subjects  were  to  hav, 
with  certain  restrictions,  free  navigation  of  Lake  Michigan. 
Goods  were  also  allowed  to  be  carried  "in  bond"  across  the 
border.  Creat  Britain  agreed  to  urge  the  (Jovernmeiit  of  the 
Dominion  of  Canada  to  grant  United  States  citizens  the  use 
of  the  Welland,  St.  Lawrence  and  other  canals  on  terms  of 
e(|uality  with  the  Canadians.  The  United  States  granted  to 
I'ritish  subjects  the  free  use  of  the  St.  Clair  flats  canal,  and 
agreed  to  urge  the  State  govermueuts  to  secure  to  them  the 
ecpial  use  of  the  State  canals  connecting  with  the  navigation 
of  the  lakes  or  rivers  along  the  boundary.  Cana<Ia  had  urged 
England  to  secure  compensation  for  the  wrongs  done  the 
former  by  the  h'enian  raids,  but  the  United  States  claimed 
that  this  subject  had  not  been  mentioned  in  previous  corre- 


m 


>>•■, 


'  Sir  John  McDonald,    Premier  Minister  of  Canada,  in  Canadian 
Commons,  May  3,  1S72. 


,v»| 


■  ''''iS 


174 


Neutrality  of  the  American  Lakes. 


s|)oii(lciu-c,  and  the  point  was  dropped.  For  awhile  it  was 
feared  that  C"anada  wcnild  rejeet  the  treaty.  The  1  Jomiiiion 
Prime  Minister  saw  the  dan^aT  of  a  "transfer  of  the  recent 
ft'jiinfj  ap^ainst  l'-nj;hind,"  and  secured  the  ratification  of  the 
treaty,  so  that  Canada  could  turn  to  a  life  of  industry.' 

There  was  an  iniprovetnent  in  q;ood  feelin,i:f  as  soon  as  the 
\V'ashinf;ton  treaty  received  the  sanction  of  the  American 
Conpress.  NewspajH-r  men  of  the  United  States  turned  to 
Canada  to  s])end  their  sunnner  vacation.'  Excursionists 
from  Canada  visited  tlic  United  States.  This  had  a  troofl 
effect  in  allayinj^  ans^ry  feelings.  While  Moody  war  was  he- 
inj2^  waj^ed  in  h'urope  the  wish  in  America  was  that  we  mi^lit 
lonp-  he  ahle  to  "settle  our  strifes  with  no  deadlier  ordnance 
than  diplomacy  and  ncRotiations." 

I'rom  that  day  to  this.  thou]c:h  tl'.'re  has  been  no  necessity 
for  border  defenses,  various  controversies  have  arisen  at  dif- 
ferent times.  Canadians  have  complained  because  thev  did 
nf>t  g-et  the  fiee  i.sc  of  certain  staie  canals  which  they  sup- 
postdtiieyhadsecu'ed  by  the  treaty  of  1871.  When  Canadiar 
authorities  p.rotesled,  the  United  States  Covernmeut  replied 
that  it  had  no  control  over  state  canals  and  could  not  coiii- 
])el  States  to  act  in  the  matter.  1  because  in  1885  the  United 
States  refused  to  ])ass  throup;h  the  Sault  .Ste.  Marie  canal 
a  Canadian  vessel  loaded  with  troops  on  their  way  to  sup- 
press the  Riel  rebellion,  and  because  in  i8()2  President 
Harrison,  in  order  to  retaliate  for  discriminati.Mi  a.^ainst 
United  States  conuuerce,' ordered  the  levy  of  discriminating-- 
tolls  on  frcip^hts  passed  throup:h  this  canal  bound  for  L"ana- 
dian  ports,  the  Canadians  have  been  led  to  build  a  canal  o' 

s  have 


their  own  on  the  ojiposite  side  of  the  river 


'ariff 


often  ruflled  the  temper  of  the  people  on  the  border.    \'ari- 


'  Sir  Jolm  MrDonalil,  in  Canadian  Commons,  May  3,  1872. 
'  Toronto  Wcclcty  Leader,  ^\^\\\  21,  1S71.    Also,  si-e  issiit'of  [iily  28. 
"Canaib  had  granted  a  90  per  cent,  rebate  of  lolls  on  tiie  St. 
Lawrence  trallic. 


AfUr  the  Storm. 


75 


ous  attempts  at  securing:  a  new  reciprocity  treaty  havr  failed.' 
Lack  of  free  commercial  intercourse  after  1866  kd  many 
Canadians  to  favor  a  commercial  union  with  the  United 
States.  This  W(jul(l  have  involvcfl  a  hri'ak  from  their  ron- 
uiction  with  Mu^land,  which  the  Canafhans  wouhl  hardly 
have  desire<l.  Canada,  thouj^h  a  democracy,  still  clinj^^s  to 
some  of  the  i)araphernalia  of  monatchy.  Aft.T  icS^^  the  de- 
mand for  ])rotective  duties  hecame  j^ener.'d  amcjuj;  larpfe 
classes  of  Canadian  people.  The  (."anadian  ( iovernnui^*^  in 
1K74,  stil'  desirvd  freedom  of  trade,  and  obtained  the  consent 
of  England  to  open  negotiati(Mis  with  the  United  States  for 
satisfactory  commercial  relations.  Sir  Edward  Thornton, 
the  I'ritish  minister,  and  Honorable  (ieorjjfe  Urown,  a  Sena- 
tor of  Canarla,  were  accredited  as  joint  pleiiii)()tentiaries  to 
negotiate  a  treaty  conci-rning  fisheries,  connnerce  and  navi- 
gation with  the  United  States.  A  treaty  satisfactory  to  all 
three  governments  was  agreed  upon,  but  it  was  rejected  by 
the  L'uited  States  Senate.  Four  years  later  there  v  as  a  feel- 
ing in  favor  of  freer  commercial  relations  with  Canada,  but 
financial  dilTiculties  in  the  United  States  stood  in  the  wav  of 
bringing  negotiations  to  a  successful  end.  In  thi'  fall  elec- 
tions of  1878  the  protectionists  were  successful  in  Canada, 
and  at  the  ne.xt  session  of  the  Dominion  I'.Hrliament  a  tariff 
was  enacted.  Since  that  time  both  countries  have  found  oc- 
casion to  complain  of  new  tariff  bills.  The  .\merican  Con- 
g;ress  has  placefl  duties  on  coal,  lobsters,  eggs,  etc. ;  Canadian 
legislation  has  excluded  .American  cattle,  and  laid  a  retalia- 
tory ta.x  on  lobster  cans,  Americans  have  responded  to 
Canadian  rdali.aion  by  threatening  to  stop  the  transmission 
of  goods  in  bond  and  by  new  tariff  provisions.  New  tariffs 
will  doubtless  continue  to  W  the  source  of  more  ur  less 
irritatii)n. 

The  cpiestioti  of  fisheries  has  also  been  a  source  of  consid- 
erable friction.  In  1878,  when  Congress  approprialcnl  money 
for  the  payment  of  the  Ilalifa.v  award,  it  inserted  a  clause 

'  Sf e  Sen  Misc.  Doc.  4,  .(d-j,  Ndl.  i.,  Dt-c.  y,  1867;  .Sen.  Exec. 
Doc.  19.  41-j,  \()1.  I,  Dec.  22,  1869;  II.  Misc.  Doc.  50,  4.^-2,  Vol.  2, 
Jan.  25,  1.S75, ;  H.  Rps.  1 1  27,  46-2,  Vol.  .j,  Apl  23   i.S.So,  and  June  7,  iS.So. 


i! 


I  i 


176 


Neutraliiy  of  the  American  Lakis. 


saying  that  articles  cij:;htccii  ami  twenty  of  tlu- T'     '      '    "   i. 
rclcrriiif;  to  the  coast  fisheries,  siiould  he  tern,.  .  .i>  .soon 

as  possible.  On  July  i,  1883,  the  President  of  the  United 
States  gave  notice  of  the  desire  of  the  United  States  to  tcr 
niiiiate  these  articles,  and  they  came  to  an  end  July  i,  I8^  ,. 
On  the  question  of  lake  fisheries,  the  Canadian  ( lovernmeiit 
has  had  some  reason  to  complain.  While  by  stringent  re- 
strictions on  fishing  it  has  endeavored  to  prevent  the  deple- 
tion of  fish  in  the  lakes,  there  is,  on  the  American  sidr.  vvherc 
the  s[)a\vniiig  grounds  are  almost  entirely  located,  :■  1  iv,  1- 
formity  of  restriction  in  the  state  laws,  and  Canada  suffers 
equally  with  the  I'uited  States  from  the  abuse  of  privilege  by 
which  American  fishermen  have  made  inroads  into  the  young 
fish.  The  fish  have  discovered  that  they  are  safer  on  the 
Canadian  side  of  the  line,  and  are  found  there  in  larger  (|uan- 
tities.  This  fact  has  attracted  .\meric:in  nshermen  to  steal 
across  the  boundary  line,  where  they  are  subject  to  seizure. 
Several  crews  have  been  taken  ]>risoners  by  the  British  reve- 
nue cruistr  I'ctrcl,  their  boats  and  tackle  confiscated,  and 
the  men  imprisoned  for  a  tinu". 

The  clash  of  interests  has  at  times  produced  iiiucii  feeling, 
but  there  has  been  no  desire  by  either  party  to  create  a  sys- 
tem of  rival  defenses  on  the  lakes.  It  is  not  imjjrobable  that 
possible  future  exigencies  have  several  times  been  consid- 
ered, but  the  .U/(7;;\'a;(  has  remained  the  ov.'i^:  naval  vessel 
upon  the  inland  "high  seas."  In  1878  it  wa.'-:  thought  advis- 
able to  replace  the  Micliii^aii  by  a  better  vessel,  but  it  was 
thought  that  such  a  change  might  be  an  infraction  of  some 
treaty.  In  November  of  that  year  Mr.  R.  W.  Thompson, 
Secretary  of  the  Xavy,  inf|uired  of  the  State  Department 
whether  any  of  the  provisitjiis  of  the  AgreemeiU  of  1817  had 
been  abrogated.'  He  was  informed  that  the  agreement  was 
still  in  force."  A  few  days  later,  in  his  annual  report,  Mr. 
Thompson    said    in    regard    to   the   iU/V/i/.c^cf//.'   "The    vessel 


'  Miscell;iiK-ous  LcUers,  Nov.  20,  1878.     (Unonicial.) 
'  125  Domestic  Letters,  p.  334.     (I'noPicial.) 


l/tcr  the  Slorin. 


177 


is  now  very  imu-li  out  of  rt'])air,  and  rc(|tiiros  extensive  work 
to  be  (lone  uj)on  her  in  order  to  Kee])  Iier  in  condition  for 
service.  If  tiie  oblitjalion  of  1817  remains  in  force,  this 
wouhl  re(|uire  a  larj^e  expenditure  of  money,  and  it  would 
probably  be  more  economical  to  sell  her,  and  api)ly  the  pro- 
ceeds, as  far  as  they  wuuld  li^o,  to  buildint;'  a  new  shij)  for  spe- 
cial sei"vice."  Mr.  'ihompsoii  lliouj^ht  that  whether  the 
Aj^rcement  of  1817  was  still  in  force  since  1865  depeufled 
upon  the  decision  of  Congress.  Congress  took  no  action 
toward  providing  a  new  lake  vessel. 

Tn  the  spring  of  1890  there  were  several  petitions  and  me- 
morials, espe  .ially  from  Chicago  clubs,  urging  that  it  would 
he  i)rudent  u'  replace  the  deteriorated  steamer  Michigan 
by  a  sound  vessel.  It  was  stated  that  the  United  States 
should  be  adecptately  represented  at  the  World's  l-'air,  and 
"that  if  this  vessel  is  seen  by  the  foreign  visitors  to  our  coun- 
try, during  her  annual  cruise  through  the  Creat  Lakes,  it 
Vvill  become  a  matter  of  reproach  to  our  government,  and 
excite  ridicule  in  tlujse  familiar  wilii  the  superior  modern 
vessels  of  other  nations.'"  These  memorials  were  referred  to 
the  Committee  on  Naval  .MTairs,  bi:t  no  further  action  was 
ever  taken. 

in  i8i)j,  at  tile  time  of  the  Behring  sea  controversy,  it  was 
reported  that  the  Canadian  Govertmient  was  building  three 
"vessels  of  war."  w  liich  they  styled  "revenue  cutters."  The 
character  of  these  vessels  did  not  escape  official  attention. 
In  the  New  \'(irk  Kecoriler  of  March  8  the  Washington  cor- 
respondent says: 

"The  character  of  the  revenue-cutters,  as  ascertained  by 
the  (official  investigation  conducted  by  the  Treasury  DeT>art- 
ment.  is  believed  by  those  who  ha\  e  looked  into  the  (piestion 
closely  to  be  a  violation  of  treaty  rights  to  which  the  United 
States  ought  n<jt  t<.  submit  without  some  kind  of  a  protest. 
Each  one  of  the  projected  revenue-cutters  would  be  available 
in  case  of  hostilities  for  the  purpose  of  actual  warfaiC,  and 


III  Filf  Utilte  ol  House  uf  Kepresenlatives. 


M 


'-m 


■it 


^"^1 


!%■ 


178 


Nculiality  of  lite  American   Lakes. 


ft  i' 


% 


1 


mn 


woultl  far  outclass  any  \csscls  wliich  would  be  at  the  dis- 
posal of  the  L'liitcd  Statis  on  tlic  (in-at  Lakes. 

"'riicir  presence  in  the  lakes  will  he  a  constant  menace, 
and  as  they  arc  not  needed  for  the  lej^itiinale  t)hjects  of  iSit 
revenue  service,  it  is  the  opinion  of  Uepresentatives  aawl 
Senators  who  have  been  approached  njion  the  subject  to-<iby 
tliat  ( Ireat  r.ritain  should  be  asked  respectfully  but  firrnlv  to 
e.\|)lain  their  presence  on  the  lakes,  and  if  that  exjilanation  » 
not  satisfactory,  to  abandon  the  icU-a  of  launchinj^  ihtm. 

"Any  action  of  the  Canadian  (loverunient  hx^kir^  'o  a 
stren}4:thenin}j;  f)f  its  forces  in  that  (piarter  oi  the  worid  jtm 
at  the  present  time,  wlu-n  the  liehriui;  si'a  (jue^tion  l-a.* 
reached  '  o  critical  a  stajLje,  can  not,  in  the  jndtrnienl  <<^  v  ''■'x 
men  in  Washington,  be  rej^rirded  with  ecpianiniiiy." 

It  does  not  aiipear  that  the  United  States  Ciovernment  *"ver 
objected  to  these  modern  "cutters."  It  was  doubtk-<««  fch 
that  there  was  no  breacli  of  treaty  stipulations.  United 
States  cutters  were  also  built,  so  that  they  would  ]»e  cairahle 
of  easy  transformation  into  tif^fht  j;unboats  and  di>j»atch  vef- 
sels,  in  order  that  they  niij^ht  form  an  adjunct  to  the  L'niiJt^J 
States  navy  in  case  of  necessity.' 

llesides  the  naval  vessel  .b'i'(7;;\'(;;/,  the  l'nite(i  Slan-f  at 
this  time  had  three  revemie  cutters  stationed  on  the  Great 
Lakes.  The  stations,  tonnage,  and  armament  of  the  vc*«ets 
were  as  follows,  viz.:  Steamer  I'crry,  at  I'.rie.  .281.54  ton*. 
two  3-inch  breech-loadiu,n"  ritles;  steamer  I'rsscHJta.  at 
Detroit,  32().8i  tons,  one  30-]iouu(ler  I'arrott,  two  24- 
pounder  Dahljj^ren  howitzers  and  two  3-inch  Ijreech-loadii^ 
rides;  steamer  Johnson,  at  Milwaukee,  449  tons,  one  30- 
poundcr  ]\irrott  and  two  24-pouncler  l')ah]!L,'ren  1 
A  new  revenue  vessel  of  450  tons  was  also  propose        -     .e 


'The  Navy  Department  has  very  recently  been  askeil  :■■    ■  < 

old  warship    Yatilic  to  the  Mirlii.nan   Naval  Reserves.     T-  -■  1 

would  have  to  be  taken  to  the  lakes  through  the  St.  Lh^t^^kt:.  Tri« 
Naval  Militia  is  not  under  tlie  control  of  the  Federal  GovCTmraciit. 
but  the  sending  of  the  )  antic  to  the  lakes  niitjht  be  intetpineled  as  an 
attempt  to  evade  the  terms  of  1817. 


hi 
al 


..J^ 


A/to-  the  Slonn. 


179 


^ll 


lakes  by  an  act  of  Conj^'ri'ss  in  March.  She  was  to  renlace 
tlio  Johnson,  wiiicli  needed  repairs.  I5csidc<  these,  the 
Ann  Arbor  i\\\i\  other  vessels  owned  hy  I'nited  States  cili/.ens 
were  hnilt  so  they  coidd  he  converted  into  vessels  of  war  in 
case  of  future  Jiostilities. 

The  consideration  of  the  Ap^rccment  of  i(Si7  was  brouqfht 
before  Cciiif^ress  in  i8()j.  not  on  account  of  the  size  of  Cana- 
dian vessels,  but  by  an  interpretation  i)laced  upf)n  the  a^rec- 
nient  by  the  Secrt-tary  of  the  Xavy.  In  1S90,  1-'.  W.  Wheeler 
&  Co.,  of  West  I'ay  City,  Mich.,  had  made  the  lowest  hid  for 
the  construction  of  the  Bancroft,  a  practice  ship  for  the  use 
of  the  Xaval  .Academy  at  .Annapolis.  Md..  but  their  bid  was 
not  considered,  because  it  was  thouj^ht  that  the  construction 
of  such  a  vessel  mi}.;^ht  be  held  to  contravene  the  .\}:;reenient 
of  1817.'  .Senator  McMillan,  of  Michifjan.  thoupfht  that  this 
was  unfair  to  the  inland  ship  interests.  On  April  5  he  pre- 
sented a  petition  from  the  iron-ship  l)uilders  of  the  Great 
Lakes  prayin<;  for  the  early  abrofjation  of  the  treaty  of  1817.' 

There  was  some  doubt  as  to  whether  the  Ajjfreement  of 
1817  was  still  in  force.  Treasury  officials  were  inclined  to 
believe  it  had  been  al)rof,^^ted  by  the  notice  which  was  rati- 
fied by  ConL^fress  on  i'"ebruary  9.  1865.  This  fact,  together 
with  the  reported  character  of  Canadian  cutters,  led  Mr.  Mc- 
Millan, on  April  11,  to  offer  the  following  resolution,  which 
was  adopted: 

"h'csohrd.  That  the  Secretary  of  State  be,  and  he  is  here- 
by, directed  to  inform  the  Senate  whether  the  acjrccment 
eniered  into  between  the  United  States  and  Great  I'ritain 
in  the  year  eighteen  hundred  and  seventeen,  coverinc:  the 
question  of  the  naval  force  to  be  maintained  by  the  two  gov- 
ernments on  the  ( "ireat  Lakes  of  the  United  States,  is  now 
held  to  be  in  force  by  the  l)ci)artment  of  State,  and  what,  if 
any,  action  has  been  taken  by  our  government  to  revive  or 
put  in  force  the  tcrm.s  of  said  agreement,  and  if  so,  under 


•  Exec.  Doc.  95,  52-1,  May  6,  1S92. 

•Journal  of  Senate,  April  8,  1S92.     Chicas^o  Tribune,  April  9,  1892, 
p.  10. 


m 


%\ 


i 


1 1  -J 


xpJftA 
1 


180 


Neulyalitv  of  tlir  Atncrican  Lahrs. 


what  atulu)n'iy  or  .ution  n!i  th<>  pnrt  nf  our  fjovcrnnicnt  such 
agreement  has  been  held  to  be  in  force  since  the  givini^  of 
the  ro(|uirocl  foniial  notice  by  the  President  to  (Ireat  IVitain 
in  Deceniber,  ei^liteen  hundred  and  sixty-four,  of  a  desire  on 
the  part  uf  the  United  States  to  annid  said  a;:;reenient  at  the 
exi)irrition  of  the  six  months  from  the  date  of  said  formal 
notice,  and  the  ratification  of  said  notice  by  the  act  of  Con- 
gress of  I'ebruary  ninth,  eiti^hteen  hundred  and  sixty-five." 

At  this  time  the  contlict  of  economic  interests  was  the 
source  of  some  unpleasant  feelinp;  toward  Canada.  The 
Lake  Carriers'  Association  conii)laincd  of  the  Canadian  canal 
tolls.  There  was  also  a  renewal  of  an  attempt  to  jjet  national 
aid  in  cou'^trnctincr  a  ship  canal  from  the  Tlreat  Lakes  to  the 
Hudson  river.  As  usual,  the  canal  was  advocated  for  mili- 
tarv  as  well  as  conunercial  reasons.  .A  representative  of  the 
Deep  Water  Ways  Association,  on  I'ebrnary  i,  before  the 
House  Committee  on  Railways  and  Canals,  stated  that  in  case 
Great  T-ritain  should  ever  jrive  notice  to  terminate  the  .A.trree- 
ment  of  1817  the  vast  American  commerce  of  the  lakes  would 
be  at  the  mercy  of  the  light-draft  vessels  which  they  could 
soon  force  throui^h  the  canals  from  the  St.  Lawrence.     He 

went  on  to  say: 

"Commerciallv  considered,  a  waterway  from  the  lalces  to 
the  sea  would  be  worth  a  hundred-foUl  its  cost,  although  tiiat 
cost  will  necessarily  be  large;  but  considered  from  a  military 
point  ^^\  view,  it  seems  to  me  that  this  great  nation  can  no 
longer  afford  to  leave  the  connnerce  and  the  cities  of  our 
northern  lakes  in  their  present  defenseless  condition.  We 
have  not  a  fort  or  a  gun  worthy  of  the  name  on  all  the  chain 
of  lakes,  and  no  possible  way  to  put  into  the  lakes  a  single 
vessel  of  war,  while  the  other  nation  owning  the  territorv  on 
the  north  can  imt  her  whole  naval  armament  with  the  excij)- 
tion  of  a  few  vessels  into  these  lakes  antl  have  our  cities  and 
our  commerce  absolutely  at  their  mercy  unless  we  prei)are 
some  wav  in  which  to  meet  them.'" 


'  H.  R.  1023,  52-1,  Feb.  1,  1892. 


After  the  Storm. 


181 


This  statement  must  not  be  interpreted  too  seriously.  Such 
papers  as  the  Chicajj^o  Tribune  and  the  New  York  Times 
luld  thai  a  few  forts  for  vital  points  were  sufTicient  to  keep 
r.ritish  llccts  out  of  the  lakes  in  case  of  any  future  war.' 

When  Congress  met  in  December  the  newspapers  an- 
nounced that  a  "complete  disintec^ration  of  relations  be- 
tween Canada  and  the  United  .States"  seemed  to  be  pendinj^. 
Tresidcnt  Harrison's  messa.c^e  was  characterized  as  '•vigor- 
ously anti-Caiiadian  in  its  tone."  anrl  the  bill  introduced  by 
Senator  I'rye  proposed  to  prohibit  the  transportation  of 
jjoods  through  any  ])art  of  the  United  States  in  Canadian 
cars,  anil  providin.ij;-  under  certain  contin<L,fencies  for  the  sus- 
pension of  the  transportation  of  Canadian  goods  in  bond  to 
or  from  aji>-  port  in  the  United  States.  On  December  7  the 
President  sent  to  the  Senate  Secretary  Foster's  resf)onse  to 
the  resolution  of  Senator  McMillan  concerninj:^  naval  forces 
on  the  lakes.  Mr.  hVister  decided  that  the  .Agreement  of  i(Si7 
was  "to  be  regarded  as  still  in  existence;"  that  .Mr.  Seward's 
withdrawal  of  the  notice  for  the  abrogation  of  the  arrange- 
ment was  to  be  considered  as  authoritative  as  the  notice  itself, 
and  that  it  would  oe  unprecedented  and  ii'admissible  for 
I'.ngland  to  dcj  otherwise  than  accept  and  respect  the  with- 
drawal as  it  had  been  given,  and  that  even  if  the  contimiancc 
of  the  arrangement  lacked  express  legislative  action  it  at 
least  violated  no  existiiig  legislation.  Mr.  Foster  thought, 
however,  that  the  arrangement  was  untit  to  meet  modern 
conditions.    I  le  said: 

"If  as  early  as  1844  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  held  that 
the  solo  consideration  of  steamers  having  taken  the  place  of 
sailing  craft  for  warlike  purposes  would  justify  a  revision  of 
the  agreement;  if  the  House  of  Representatives  in  1S64  re- 
garded the  opening  oi  the  Canadian  canals  as  introducing 
an  inequality  inev'Uipatible  with  its  engagements;  and  if,  as 
Mr.  Seward  held  in  1864,  the  informal  arrangement  of  April, 
1817,  could  scarcely  have  anticipated  such  a  condition  of 

'  Chicago  Tribune,  April  13,  i8y2. 


■jj 


li 


■•>;■: 


1-1 


■    AT*' 


■  -'^ 


.S't^ 


182 


Nrulia/ilv  of  the  Amcrirnn   Lakes. 


r 


!(  •-■ 


.  ''■ 


::U 


tliiiip:s  as  tlie  tiiaintcnaiicc  of  a  marine  force  adequate  to  rope 
with  (lonic'stic  tn»ul)lcs  or  civil  war  on  either  side,  it  seems 
most  (U'sirahU-  now,  in  view  of  the  lonj^  lapse  of  tiuie  ami  the 
vast  cIian},H's  wrought  in  tlicse  and  otiier  no  le>s  important 
ref^ards,  that  the  arran},a'ment  now  s^rown  obsolete  in  prac- 
tice, and  surviving  in  the  letter  only  as  a  declared  {guaranty 
of  international  ])eace.  should  he  nf)dified  to  fit  the  new  order 
,  and  with  such  adai)tati'(n  to  the  cxifj^encies  of  the 


of  th. 


fut 


ure  as  prudence  may 


fore 


cast 


Secretary  l'"oster's  coninnuiicpi.on  created  a  stir  at  the 
American  capital.'  It  was  the  principal  subject  of  coincrsa- 
tion  for  conj^ressmen  in  the  hotels  and  lobbies.  The  >4;ein'ral 
sentiment  was  hostile  to  the  reopcTiitiL^  of  the  (|uestiou.'  It 
w'as  feared  that  any  niodifu-ation  of  the  a};reement  mit^dit 
invite  serious  complications.  Even  Senator  McMillan,  who 
introduced  the  resolution  of  incpiiry,  said  that  he  had  come 
to  the  conclusion,  after  a  full  investigation  of  the  subject,  that 
Enj.^land  had  everythintj  to  j.^ain  and  the  I'nited  ."^tatrs  r-  cry- 
thinj;  to  lose  by  chanj,Mn}.;  the  aj^n-eiuieiU.  He  contrasted 
the  almost  barren  shores  of  Canada  with  tin 


factu 


run 


lores  ot  Lanada  wUM  the  populous  in.nui- 
cities  on  the  (opposite  American  shores,  and  re- 


ferred to  the  iiiniiense  conunerce  in  .\merican  vessels  ni)on 


thi 


akes. 


A   llritish  gunboat  of  modern  type  would  be  a 


constant  menace,  lie  said  that  "the  occasional  privile"-e  of 
building  a  small  man-of-war  vessel  would  not  be  an  induce- 
nietU  f(jr  a  change."  Re])resentative  C'hipman.  of  .Michigan, 
a  Democratic  member  of  the  b'oreign  .\lTairs  C'onunittee  in 
the  House,  said  that  the  armed  vessel  clause  of  the  agree- 
ment should  not  be  abrogated  before  the  construction  of 
ship  canals  around  Niagara  b'alls  to  the  tide-watei  of  the 
Hudson  river.  lie  added:  "The  fact  that  (Ireat  I'irilain  lon- 
trols  the  !^t.  Lawrence  and  the  canals  between  Lake  ( )ntario 
and    Lake    Erie    nuist    not  be  forgotten."     Kepreseiitaiive 


'  K.xec.  Doc.  9.  52-2,  Dec.  7,  1S92,  [).  34. 

■^  IVits/iiuii/on  I^ost,  Dec.  8,  1S92.     Also,  Dec.  9,  22,  24,  25  ami  27. 

'•'•Detroit  l-'rcc  Press,  Dec.  9,  1S92.     Cliiia^o  'J ributic,  Dec.  9,  1892. 


:J'-''? 


'i\ 


n 


After  the  Storm. 


183 


Ilcrhirt,  chairman  of  C"oniiniltcc  on  Xaval  Affairs,  bcliovi-d 
tliat  it  wonld  Nc  a  wist'  tiling'  to  k-avc  the  af^ri-cnit'iit  iiniiiodi- 
fii'd.  He  said;  "My  own  idea  would  be  that  it  is  best  not  to 
allow  any  war  ships  into  the  lakes  durinj^  time  of  peace  and, 
in  event  of  hostilities,  the  projier  tiling'  to  do,  it  seems  t;.  me, 
would  be  to  seize  the  W'ellaud  eanal  with  an  army  and  then 
ilestroy  it  with  dynamite.  Such  an  act  as  this  would  make 
it  impossible  for  h.n^land  to  ^;et  any  of  her  ships  upon  the 
lakes."  h'ven  .Senator  h'rye,  of  Maine,  who  had  at  t'lrsl 
spoken  in  favor  of  the  imme(li;ite  abro,i,Mtiou  of  the  ai^ree- 
nieiit,  by  the  last  week  of  Decendjer  was  not  much  concerned 
about  it.  lie  ilid  not  think  that  England  meant  mischief 
upon  the  lakes. 

The  editorials  in  the  Washington  Post  and  a  few  other 
newsf)a|)ers  insisted  that  in  view  of  the  recent  friction  with 
Canada,  in  regard  to  ti^heries  and  canal  managenieul,  the 
character  of  the  new  Canadian  vessels  should  not  be  viewed 
without  ai)prehensi(jn.  It  was  generally  considered,  how- 
ever, that  the  Canadians  Iwul  no  hostile  intentions.  Mr.  C. 
II.  'lupper,  of  the  Canadian  (Itjvernment,  said  in  an  inter- 
view cc.cerning  the  relations  between  Canaila  and  the 
United  States  that  the  vessels  built  by  Canada  on  the  (ircat 
Lakes  were  simply  revemie  cruisers  and  cruisers  to  protect 
the  lisheries.  He  denied  that  their  conslructii)n  had  in  any 
wa\  violated  the  treaty  with  the  I'nited  Stales.' 

In  October,  iH(;5,  at  a  time  when  dipUMualic  relations  with 
England  were  somewhat  disturbed  over  the  \  enezuelan 
bound.ary  (juesliou,  a  fri'sh  discussion  of  the  Agreement  of 
1S17  was  occasioned  by  the  refusal  of  the  Navy  Department 
t(j  award  to  the  Detroit  Dry  Dock  Com])any  the  contract  for 
two  twin-screw  gunboats  on  which  this  company  was  the 
lowest  l)i(Kler.  Secretary  Herbert,  of  the  Xavy,  said  that  if 
the-  language  of  the  Agreement  of  1817  had  been  "l)uild  and 
maintain"  instead  of  "build  or  maintain"  the  Detroit  firm 


'  London   Times,  Dec.  21,  1892,  p.  5,  column  5.     Also,  see  Detroit 
l'>ec  J'reis  for  Nov.  29,  1.S92,  p.  2. 


>'.;« 


if 

I'i: 


'  ( . 


* 


"J^^ 


i 


i'  f ,, '.'  i 


184 


Neutrality  of  the  .liiht i\ii):   /.a^YS. 


should  have  had  the  contract.  IK'  would  not  reverse  the 
decision  of  the  previous  athniuist ration.  Ju<U;x'  .\(lvoi-aie 
General  Lcmly  recomnicndcd  tlio  rejection  of  the  Detroit 
bids  on  the  }:,'roun(l  that  their  acceptance  woidd  he  in  viola- 
tion of  the  spirit  if  not  the  letter  of  the  aj^reenient.  1  Ic  even 
held  that  vessels  could  not  be  constructed  on  a  lake  port 
piecemeal  and  then  assembled  on  the  seacoast.  The  Detroit 
company  api)ealed  the  case  to  President  Cleveland.  There 
was  considerable  newspaper  conniu-iit  aj^ainst  an  arranije- 
ment  which  thus  discriminated  aJ.,^•liIlst  lake  slii])builders.' 
Some  of  them  spoke  of  the  Canadian  "cutters"  as  bein^j  a 
secret  and  unrlerhand  violatifjn  of  the  a.i,Meenient.  and  asked, 
"why  shall  we  not  feel  ourselves  privilej^a-d  to  build  f^iuilxiats 
for  ocean  use  openly  and  above-l)(>ar(l?"  .\  prominent  I'^ast- 
ern  shipbuilder  stated  that  it  was  "an  outrajje  upon  our 
national  manhood  and  a  disj^race  to  our  flap,"  and  that  it  was 
time  for  a  "Declaration  of  Independence  on  the  Lakes."  In 
a  letter  to  a  member  of  President  Cleveland's  cabinet  he  said 
that  "the  whole  treaty  .  .  .  ou^jht  to  be  torn  up  and  con- 
signed to  the  waste  basket,"  and  he  thought  that  if  the 
"rugged  and  forceful  mind"  of  the  President  was  brought  to 
bear  on  the  question  he  would  be  disposed  to  "act  in  the 
American  fashion."  Mr.  Cleveland  after  thoroughly  consid- 
ering the  matter  approved  the  action  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Navy  in  rejecting  the  bids.  He  said:  "The  agreement  made 
between  the  United  States  and  Great  Ihitaiu  in  1817  con- 
tains a  stipulation  that  no  such  vessels  shall  be  'built'  on  the 
great  lakes.  This  agreement  is  too  explicit  to  be  explained 
away.  While  the  passing  of  the  exigency  in  which  it  origi- 
nated and  the  change  of  conditions  that  have  since  occurred 
may  furnish  reasons  for  its  annulment  in  the  manner  pro- 
vided in  the  contract,  they  do  not  justify  such  a  plain  disre- 
gard of  it  as  the  carrying  out  of  the  bid  of  the  Detroit  Dry 
Dock  Company  would  involve."'' 

'  Philadelphia  Ledger,  Oct.  25,  1895.  Ciiicago  Times  Herald,  Oct. 
27  and  29        an  Francisco  Chronicle,  Oct.  29.      Toledo  Blade,  Oct.  29. 

^Philadelphia  Times,  Nov.  3.  Chicago  yWj/,  Nov.  2.  Haltiniore 
Sun,  Nov.  4. 


After  I  fit'  Slonn. 


IM 


It  was  also  claimed,  probably  rorrcrlly.  tliat  if  occasimi  had 
■,\\\>(\\  tlic  British  would  have  placed  upon  the  Aj^reement  of 
1817  a  more  liberal  construction,  which  would  have  allowed 
war  vessels  to  be  built  on  the  lakes.  Such  an  interiiretation, 
however,  could  not  be  of  much  value  to  the  ship-buildin,!^'-  in- 
terests of  the  lakes  imlcss  the  I'liited  .States  had  the  ri;;ht  of 
passinf,'  war-dii]>s  lhrou};h  the  W'ellaud  and  St.  Lawrence 
canals.  .'\  treaty  or  permit  would  be  necessary  to  secure  the 
passaj^'e  of  our  >,nmboats  through  Canadian  canals  to  the 
ocean.  I  Jut,  haviufj;  denied  Canada  the  privilege  of  passing 
her  volunteers  throuf^h  the  Sault  .Stt-.  Marie  canal  during 
the  Kiel  rebellion,  the  United  States  ( iovermnent  would 
hardly  desire  to  ask  a  similar  favor  of  the  Canadians,'  and 
especially  so  when  diplomatic  relations  were  not  the  best. 
Even  if  such  ])ermission  had  been  obtained,  only  boats  of 
less  than  twelve  feet  dnift  would  have  been  able  to  ]niss. 

Xotwitlislandiiig  this  fact.  stei)s  were  taken  in  November, 
i8<i5,  to  secure  the  abrogation  of  the  agreement  by  Congress. 
The  Detroit  city  council  took  the  initiative  in  urging  this 
policy.'  Other  lake  cities  were  asked  10  join  in  the  nujve- 
nient.    The  mayor,  in  his  message  to  the  council,  said: 

"Primarily,  it  is  an  injustice  to  the  capitalists  whose  money 
is  invested  and  the  American  architects  whose  brains  are 
actively  engaged,  and  to  the  myriad  of  mechanics  whose 
labor,  with  the  other  (juantities  mentioned,  has  built  the 
superb  lleet  of  fresh  water  mercli.'intmen  which  is  the  pride 
of  the  great  lakes,  that  they  are  di'barred  from  eiUering  into 
legitimate  competition  with  their  competitors  on  the  sea- 
board in  the  construction  of  vessels  for  the  American  navy." 

A  circular  letter,  sent  by  the  mayor  of  Detroit  to  the 
mayors  of  the  other  lake  cities,  was  in  ])art  as  folknvs: 

"The  work  of  ship  construction  in  the  lake  region  has  at- 
tained to  a  degree  of  prominence  that  demands  some  recog- 
nition from  the  general  government  in  the  award  of  con- 


'  ^fa^■i)u•  /iVfyrrf  (Cleveland),  Oct.  31,  1S95. 
''■  Di'hoil  Free  Press,   Nov.  8.      Detroit   Tribune 
Huron  Times,  Nov.  14. 


Nov. 


Port 


iFij 


f 


.'-% 


Vi 


<^ 


/a 


A 


VI 


S. 


e/A 


oS    -'b 


VJ 


'/ 


/A 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


1.0 


I.I 


IIIIM  IIIIIM 

IIIIM    '""= 
itt    ill  2.0 


1.25 


1.4 


1.8 


1.6 


Photographic 

Sdences 

Corporation 


& 


// 


{./ 


>■  #? 


Q, 


\ 


;v 


^9) 


.V 


40^^ 


\\ 


^ 


# 


rv^ 


6^ 


23  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER,  N.Y.  14580 

(716)  872-4503 


<°  mPx. 


% 


i    mp< 


Q, 


A 


1^ 


\\ 


6^ 


;l.'i 


.!  i' 


186 


Neutrality  of  the  American  Lakes. 


tracts  for  naval  vessels.  And  the  excuse  of  a  possible  conflict 
between  rival  naval  forces  on  the  lakes,  is  no  more  to  he  ac- 
cepted seriously  than  a  possible  conflict  of  the  same  naval 
forces  in  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  or  the  harbors  of  Hawaii  or 
China  in  time  of  peace.  If  a  navy  is  to  be  maintained  at  all, 
there  is  as  good  reason  for  maintaining  a  fleet  upon  the 
Great  Lakes  as  upon  the  eastern  coast  of  the  United  States, 
and  far  greater  reason,  in  view  of  the  relative  importance  of 
the  commercial  vessel  interest,  than  to  maintain  it  on  the 
Chinese  or  Japanese  coast." 

Considerable  newspaper  comment  followed  the  publica- 
tion of  this  circular.'  It  would  be  hard  to  analy/.c  all  the  ele- 
ments which  influenced  the  discussion.  Personal  and  local 
as  well  as  national  interests  entered  into  the  considerations. 
In  some  cases  the  desire  to  "attract"  Canada  was  avowed. 
Some  wanted  a  show  of  naval  force  to  "protect''  the  lake 
commerce  and  to  inspire  "Miss  Canada"  with  the  respect 
which  coy  maidens  have  for  strength  and  power.  Others 
held  that  the  timid  maiden  across  the  lines  would  be 
come  alarmed  by  the  paraphernalia  of  war.  Still  others  pre- 
ferred friendship  to  matrimonial  advances.  Though  there 
was  no  small  expression  in  favor  of  a  modification  of  the 
agreement,  the  agitation  for  its  abrogation  was  unsuccessful. 
The  Detroit  Tribune  hold  that  any  benefits  which  might 
flow  from  the  abrogation  would  be  dearly  paid  with  a  system 
of  rival  navies  racing  upon  the  waters  where  the  United 
States  had  hitherto  held  absolute  strategic  possession.  The 
Chicago  Tribune  said:  "If  England  wants  the  agreement  to 
stand  and  is  willing  to  live  up  to  it  honestly,  the  United 
States  should  interpose  no  objection."  In  reply  to  the  De- 
troit circular  letter  the  mayor  of  Port  Huron  stated  that  he 
was  not  ready  to  join  in  an  efifort  to  abrogate  a  treaty  which 
had  "for  over  fifty  years  given  the  United  States  almost  un- 

'  Detroit  Evening  News,  Nov.  14.  San  Francisco  Chronicle,  Nov. 
II.  Chicago  Tribune,  Nov.  15,  16  and  18.  Baltimore  Herald,  Nov. 
18.  Detroit  7ri/>iine,  Nov.  18.  Detroit  Evening  Press,  Nov.  19. 
Port  Hiiro n  Times,  Nov.  19.     Detroit  Free  Press,  Nov.  27. 


■i""^ 


After  the  Storm. 


187 


disputed  possession  of  our  great  inland  seas  upon  which  the 
white-winged  messengers  of  American  commerce,  flying  the 
American  flag,  manned  by  American  seamen,  built  by 
American  capital,  pass  and  repass  our  very  doors  unmo- 
lested by  a  single  ship  of  war."  If  the  mayors  of  other  cities 
favored  the  proposed  abrogation  the  matter  was  at  least 
never  brought  before  Congress. 

In  the  newspaper  discussions  it  was  claimed,  perhaps  with 
some  grounds,  that  the  British  had  in  convenient  warehouses 
an  equipment  which  could  transform  some  good  Canadian 
lake  merchant  boats  into  dangerous  war  vessels.  General 
Miles  also  called  attention  to  this  fact,  and  stated  that  "in 
case  of  a  war  with  England  this  country  would  be  at  a  fright- 
ful disadvantage  on  the  lakes."  He  did  not  think  a  war  with 
England  was  likely,  but  he  contended  that  the  United  States 
should  be  prepared  for  any  emergency.  In  November  and 
December  the  newspapers  were  full  of  dispatches  and  edi- 
torials relating  to  the  defense  of  the  lakes.'  In  the  Navy  De- 
partment at  Washington  it  was  proposed  to  accumulate  a 
supply  of  rppid-fire  rifles,  so  that  the  large  American  lake 
vessels  coul  iberai)idly  armed  and  converted  into  gunboats  in 
case  of  an  emergency.  In  this  way  it  was  said  that  a  formid- 
able fleet  could  quickly  be  put  afloat  on  the  lakes.  Some 
men  occupying  front  seats  in  their  party  spoke  often  of  an 
approaching  irrepressible  conflict  between  ihe  two  great 
English-speaking  nations,  said  it  had  as  well  come  to  blows 
as  to  be  postponed,  and  began  to  settle  plans  of  foreign  alli- 
ances in  their  minds.  But  luckily  they  were  not  the  guiding 
stars  of  that  true  American  foreign  policy  which  neither  cul- 
tivates special  enmities  nor  "entangling  alliances." 

The  crisis  in  the  Venezuelan  dispute  was  reached  a  few 
days  before  Christmas,  when  Tresidcnt  Cleveland,  in  a  delib- 
erately   prepared    message,  announced    the  attitude, of  the 


'  Haltimore  Herald,  Nov.  7.  Detroit  Free  Press,  Nov.  7.  Cliicago 
Times- Herald,  Dec.  20.  l];Utiinore  Herald,  iJec.  21.  Superior 
(Wis.)  Leader,  Dec.  24.      Washington  Evening  'limes,  Dec.  24. 


•  ^  • 


^1 


:rj'::' 


■'•/ 


r.  n 


■«  ^ 


\  A 


;*'/LilJ 


HWa 


:M1 


;?:p' 


188 


Neutrality  of  the  American  Lakes. 


HP    ■  ' 


m\. 


United  States.  Affairs  moved  at  a  rai)id  pace  for  several 
days.  The  Canadian  Government  took  steps  to  negotiate  for 
lake  vessels  which  coidd  be  converted  into  cruisers  in  case  of 
war.  Commercial  interests  were  disturbed,  and  there  were 
panics  in  securities,  but  the  waves  of  belligerenc}'  which  had 
been  sv.eeping  over  the  country  for  several  months  had 
already  reached  their  greatest  height.  They  rapidly  sub- 
sided at  the  beginning  of  1896,  when  it  became  evident  that 
the  English  Government  showed  no  disposition  to  precipi- 
tate a  quarrel  by  adopting  a  policy  which  would  call  into 
question  any  interpretation  which  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment might  place  upon  the  "Monroe  doctrine."  The  Vene- 
zuelan question  was  adjusted  satisfactorily  to  all  parties. 
The  relations  between  England  and  the  United  States  be- 
came more  harmonious  than  they  had  been  for  years.  It  was 
felt  that  future  differences  could  be  settled  by  the  mutual 
good  sense  and  righteous  feeling  of  the  two  peoples.  There 
was  a  growth  of  sentiment  in  favor  of  providing  for  the  set- 
tlement of  disputes  by  arbitration.  The  people  on  each  side 
of  the  lakes  continued  their  usual  peaceful  vocations,  with  no 
other  source  of  irritation  than  that  which  arose  from  the  con- 
flicts of  commercial  interests. 

Though  another  war  with  England  is  not  a  probable  con- 
tingency, sources  of  friction  are  liable  to  arise  in  the  future 
as  they  have  in  the  past.  International  difficulties  between 
England  and  the  United  States  will  hardly  play  so  large  a 
part  in  future  American  history  as  they  have  in  the  past.  The 
principal  questions  for  future  adjustment  in  Anglo-Ameri- 
can relations  are  likely  to  be  connected  with  the  British  pos- 
sessions in  North  America.^  This  fact  has  been  urged  as  a 
reason  v.-hy  these  dependencies  should  become  a  part  of  our 
great  American  Union.     In  December,  1894,  Senator  Gal- 


'  The  Behring  Sea  question  has  been  the  source  of  much  discussion. 
It  directly  affects  the  relations  between  the  United  States  and  Canada. 
The  discovery  of  gold  on  the  upper  Yukon  may  j^ive  rise  to  new 
international  problems.  Questions  in  regard  to  the  eastern  boundary 
of  Alaska  are  liable  to  arise. 


IW! 


Aftn-  the  Storm. 


189 


linger,  of  New  liampshiro,  offered  a  resolution  for  the  union 
of  Canada  with  the  United  States  in  order  to  stop  the  danger 
of  war.  In  ]\Iarch,  1895,  Senator  Higgins,  in  a  speech  on  the 
Naval  Appropriation  Dill,  after  referring  to  the  military  char- 
acter of  the  Canadian  Pacific  Railway,  and  the  inexpediency 
of  as.iistiug  Canada  in  joint  ship  canals  between  the  lakes  and 
the  St.  Lawrence,  said:  "Every  day  that  Canada  remains  a 
part  of  the  British  Empire  she  is  a  standing  menace  to  us.  .  . 
We  shall  be  in  an  incipient  stage  of  conflict  until  .  .  .  the 
whole  American  continent  is  governed  in  peace  under  the 
dome  of  this  Capitol." 

A  union  of  Canada  and  the  United  States,  even  if  it  should 
be  favored  by  the  people  of  the  United  States,  is  not  feasible. 
The  greatest  objection  would  not  come  from  England,  but 
from  Canada  herself.  Canada  at  present  practically  governs 
herself.  She  has  her  own  system  of  taxation.  Her  tarifT 
favors  England  no  more  than  it  favors  the  United  States. 
Her  people,  with  their  present  political  freedom,  have  no  de- 
sire to  break  their  connection  with  the  British  Empire.  In 
case  future  expediency  should  lead  to  their  separation  from 
the  Empire  their  national  aspirations  would  probably  lead 
them  to  form  an  independent  nation.  It  is  at  least  certain 
that  there  is  at  the  present  time  no  widespread  desire  of  an- 
nexation to  the  United  States.  William  Kingsford,  in  the 
preface  of  his  eighth  volume  on  the  "History  of  Canada," 
writes:  "In  Canada  we  can  have  no  feeling  towards  the 
United  States  but  the  desire  to  be  the  best  of  neighbors  and 
the  truest  of  friends."  Canada  would  oppose  an  imperial 
federation  with  England  as  much  as  she  would  oppose  being 
annexed  to  the  United  States.  Under  present  conditions  she 
desires  to  work  out  her  own  destiny. 

In  case  Canada  should  ever  become  one  of  the  independent 
nations  of  the  earth,  there  need  be  no  more  use  of  frowning 
fleets  to  darken  the  inland  waters  than  there  is  to-day.  There 
would  probably  be  no  desire  to  establish  an  armed  truce  in 
place  of  the  neutrality  which  has  existed  during  the  long 
period  since  British  fleets  went  to  the  bottom  of  Lake  Erie. 


I  i 


M 


m'^ 


m 


190 


Neutrality  of  the  American  Lakes. 


If  the  waters  of  the  Great  Lakes,  sometimes  rcposinpf  in 
ap])arent  shig^.c^ishness,  and  sometimes  lashed  into  spray  and 
rolHng'  waves  by  the  tempests  wliioh  sweep  over  them,  and 
ahvays  rushing  to  the  sea  tnrouj.'!!  the  St.  Lawrence,  are  for- 
ever to  separate  two  nations,  they  may  nevertheless  be  the 
means  of  washinf]^  out  all  enmity  between  the  people  on  their 
shores  and  aid  in  preserving  one  common  civilization/ 


'  It  has  been  urged  by  many  persons  interested  in  the  lake  com- 
merce that  the  United  States  and  Canada  should  secure  a  co-opera- 
tive arrangement  for  the  joint  improvement  and  use  of  the  water- 
ways connecting  the  lakes  witli  each  other  and  with  liie  sea.  (See 
Proceedings  of  International  Deep-Waterways  Association,  Cleve- 
land, 1S95.) 


\H 


\  \  ^ 


I  1  f 

til: 


INDEX. 


Ada:\is,  C.  F.,  minister  at  London 137 

Adams,  J.  Q.,  proposal  to  Castlereagh 68 

Agukkmknt  of  iSry — 

suggested 60,  6r 

propositirn  for 68,  73-78 

exchange  (n  notes 83 

ratified  by  Senate 84 

proclamation  of 84 

provisions  of 13.  84 

interpretation  of .  13,  14,  120,   12S,   133,  13S,  139,  142,  14S,  153,  157, 

166,  .76,  177,  178,   1S4,   185 

no  exact  precedent  for 20 

advantages 21 

opinions  and  comments 20,  15S,  162,  1S2 

ignorance  of  otlicers  concerning 108 

agitation  for  abrogation     19,  150,  158,  179,  185 

notice  to  abrogate 17,  151,  153,  159 

withdrawal  of  notice  to  abrogate 19,  163,  166 

opposition  to  abrogation 182,  186 

reported  violations 9,=^,  127 

revision  suggested 128,  181 

modification  opposed 182 

British  attitude  toward 106,  121,  122,  125,  126,  151,  165 

British  attitude,  information  asked  concerning    .    .    .    .103,115,118 

not  a  restriction  on  revenue  cutters 148 

Congress  requests  information  as  to 158,  179 

discussed  in  British  Parliament 160,  163-5 

regarded  as  still  in  force 181 

American  Advantage  ON  THE  Lakes 112,  113 

American  Vessels  ox  the  Lakes  (see  "Naval  force"   and 

"Vessels"). 
Arbitration 25 

Armaments — 

source  of  irritatio 66 

augmentation  of 66-7 


0M 


1^ 


192 


Index. 


I   ' 


Akmamkxts — 

ndtiction  of i.),  15,  65,  130 

distnantlin.i:;  of S5,  130 

recommciuled 152 

(See  "  Naval  force  ") 

Bagot,  Sir  Chaklks,  negotiations  with 73-8 

Border  Dissunsions,  sources  of  .   .   .17,  66,  136,  139,  145,  149,  152 
removal  of 86,  S7,  129,  173 

Boundary — 

as  proposed  by  Continental  Congress 31 

instructions  to  commissioners 31,32 

factors  in  determining 33 

changes  proposed  by  liritish 34,  49,  54 

conunent  on 34,  35 

detail  of,  settled  by  conmiissioners 88 

British — 

defences  increased 15 

efforts  to  control  the  fur  trade 37,  43 

vessels  attacked  on  the  lakes 43 

fear  of  American  conquest 53,  j6i 

monopoly  of  the  lake  trade 60 

armaments,  sources  of  irritation 66 

attitude  during  the  civil  war 157 

British  Traders — 

petition  for  armed  vessels 3S 

influence  with  the  Indians 39-4S 

necessity  of  preventing  their  navigation  of  the  lakes 48 

British  Advantage  ok  Access  to  Lakes 112,  150 

Canada — 

rebellion  in 15,  9' 

invasion  of,  proposed 29-30,  44,  98 

proposed  cession  to  United  States 32 

proposed  cession  opposed  by  the  ministry 33 

cession  of,  urged 49,  50,  55 

conquest  of,  not  a  policy  of  the  United  States 54 

annexation,  feeling  in  favor  of 139,  171 

Madison's  views  as  to 87 

"Patriot"  plans  for  invasion  of 98,99,  116 

Confederate  agent?  in 16,  145-7,  152-4,  156 

apprehended  "sudden  blow"  from 116,  117 

attitude  after  the  TV^w/afTair 139 

Canal  Convention  at  Chicago 143 


■J^* 


Index. 


198 


Canals— 

petitions  for i6 

Canadians  biiildin},' 88 

tile  Erie 90 

proposed  for  protection  of  nortliern  frontier 144,162 

recommended  to  connect  tiie  lakes  witii  tlie  Mississippi  and 

the  Hudson 142,  150,  180 

recommended  around  the  Niagara 122,  144 

needed  for  Western  commerce 143 

Canadian  advantage  in 150 

recommended  by  Canada  for  defensive  purposes 162 

free  use  of,  granted 173 

free  use  of,  denied 174 

cooperation  in  building  urged 190 

Cannon  for  the  Lakes 126,  128 

Caroline  AvvwK 15.  93,  96,  102 

Castlereagh,  plans  to  prevent  rival  fleets 61 

meets  the  proposal  of  Adams 71 

Civil  War,  difficulties  arising  in 16,  136,  139,  145,  149,  152 

Clarke's  Expedition 30 

Colonist,  winning  the  West  by  the 28 

Commerce,  dellection  of  Western 16,  90,  143,  160 

of  the  lakes 21 

with  Canada,  prevention  advocated 40 

growth  of  Western 91,  131 

Confedkratk  Agents,  in  Canada 16,  145-7,  152,  153 

their  (lag  upon  the  lakes 17,  152 

false  rumors  concerning 154,  156 

Cl'TTERS,   REVENUE, 

13,  17.  74,  130,  133-4,  139,  148,  157,  166,  177,  178,  183 
Defences  for  the  Lakes— 

during  the  war  of  1812 .44-6,52 

British,  increase  by 15 

reports  of  increase  by 102,  103,  104,  129 

call  for  information  concerning 103,  105 

reports  upon,  to  Congress 109 

discussion  in  Congress no,  in,  114 

views  of  Cass 90 

views  of  Polk     129 

petitions  for  increase  of 113,   117 

Seward  draws  attention  to n7,  139 

plan  for  in  case  of  war 131 

13 


:;i  !? 


ill 


104 


bidex . 


I   Da 


Dkkknces  roR  the  I.akks— 

Canadian  preparation  a  source  of  alarm 117,   160 

abandoned  as  unnecessary 131,   132 

plans  considered •   139-42,  187,   18S 

recommended  by  committee  of  Congress 142 

7;M>«^rf/rt/^  advantage  of  British 140 

canals  proposed  for  military  purposes 143 

discussion  in  Canadian  Parliament 162 

"  British  "  160,   163-5 

(See  "  Naval  force.") 

Dei'OTs,  Navai- — recommended 142,  150 

Disarmament,  suggested 60,  61,  63,  64 

proposed 11,  62,  63,  67-9,  75-6 

negotiations  for 11,  67-84 

provisional  arrangement  for 77,  80 

agreement  for      •  ...  13,  84 

advantages  of 23,  66 

Madison's  idea  of 73-4 

Monroe's  "precise  project" 75 

Dissension,  sources  of 17,  86,  175-6 

removal  of  sources  of 86,  87,  129 

Dix  Order 155,  159 

Duties,  on  American  vessels  passing  British  posts 37 

on  British  goods  passing  the  portages 42 

seizure  of  vessels,  for  avoiding 42 

a  source  of  some  friction '74-5 

"  Era  OK  Good  Feeling  " 86 

Fenians  Desire  TO  Invade  Canada 154,167,168-172 

Fisheries,  treaty  concerning 173 

source  of  friction 175-6 

Fortifications,  removal  of 89 

views  of  Cass  as  to 89-90 

(See  "Defences.") 
France  and  England,  conflict  between 28 

French  Fur  Trade 28 

French  Policy  AS  TO  Canada 30,  31,  33 

Ghent,  treaty  of 10,  56 

Great  Lakes,  theatre  of  early  conflicts      27,  36 

(See  "Lakes.") 

Harbors,  improvement  of 90,  1 1 1 

Head,  Governor-Generai " 96 


*■  .t., 


Index. 


196 


Invasions— 

proposed     29-30,  44,  98,  n6 

Fenian       18,   167-172 

rumors  of  plans  for 94,   116,   117 

Confederate  plots  for 145 

Indian  Barrier,  English  attempts  to  secure 39i  51,  52 

Jay  Treaty 39,  40,  46,  60 

Jefferson,  on  war  and  peace 10,56-8 

on  Clarke's  expedition 30 

on  alliance  with  England 41 

on  acquisition  of  Canada 47.  53 

Jingoism,  decline  of 23 

Lake  Builders,  bids  of  rejected 19,  179,  183 

Lake  Commerce,  growth  of 132 

restrictions  proposed 40 

under  the  Jay  treaty 46-7,  60 

threatened  by  Confederates 146 

Lake  Defences.     (See  "Defences.") 

Lake  Frontier,  sources  of  dissension  on 16,  17,86,  175-6 

American  advantage  of  defence  on 131 

Lake  Harbors,  needed  improvement in 

Lake  Posts  and  British  Traders 10,  33,  37 

Lake  Steamers,  early 90 

Lakes— 

French  lose  control  of 28 

Spain's  desires  as  to 31 

Morris'  expectations  as  to 31 

first  American  flag  on 36 

relation  to  western  growth 37 

necessity  of  reciprocity  in  navigation  of 40 

rival  navies  on 11,  60,  66 

neutrality  of  for  trade 43 

proposal  to  restrict  navigation  on 49 

plans  to  control  in  1812 44,  48 

British  desire  for  military  occupation  of 50,  54,  62 

Confederate  flag  on 152 

naval  forces  on.     (See  "  Naval  force.'') 

McLeod,  arrest  of no 

release  requested no 

border  feeling  preceding  his  trial 115,117,   119 

Madison,  ideas  of  as  to  disarmament 73-4 


irfNT 


■1; 


« 


.  ■: 


i  * 


ir 


i:! 


106 


Index. 


Maink  Boundakv  Disi'i  tk 96 

Mic/iiffiin,  The 16,   18 

history  of  its  constnictioii 123-5 

British  ol)jection  to 125-6,  132,  133,   138 

not  considered  as  violating  the  Agreement  of  1817 138 

Confederate  attempt  to  capture 152 

used  in  preventing  P'enian  invasions 169,  172 

proposals  to  replace  it  with  new  vessel 177 

Militia,  Navai 18 

MoNCK,  Lord— 
proposed  increase  of  British  force  to  protect  American  com- 
merce      146 

his  idea  of  the  Agreement  of  1817 147 

efforts  of  to  prese'-ve  neutrality 146,   149 

MONROK— 

his  "  precise  project "  for  reduction  of  fleets 87 

his  Northern  tour 87 

Naval  Depots,  recommended 142,  150 

Naval  Forces — 

Canadian  plans  for 40,  56 

Hull  suggests  armed  vessels  for  Erie 42 

in  the  war  of  181 2 44-46 

condition  of  the  forces  in  1816 81-2 

mutu.  1  reduction  of i3i  83 

dismantling  of,  and  decline  of 85 

temporary  increase  by  British 98,99,  loi,  169-70 

increase  considered  by  United  States 97,100,122,  157 

British  increase  discussed  in  Congress 104,  105 

reports  on  British  increase 107,  108,  115,  127,  130 

counter-preparation  agitated  in  United  States, 

proposed  in  Congress 1 11,  112 

not  to  exceed  treaty  stipulations 123 

petitions  for 114 

plans  for 117,  123 

British  increase  leads  to  diplomatic  correspondence 120 

"  "         defended  by  Fox 121,  125 

British,  decline  of 122,  130 

Americans  build  the  Michigan     123-125 

increase  of,  advised  by  Monck 146,  147 

by  American  officials 152 

temporary  increase  by  United  States 152 

suggested  as  a  means  to  repress  political  agitators  .    .   .  155-6,  169 

debated  in  British  Parliament 163 

advocated  for  "  show  " 177,   t86 


\i 


m 


Index 


197 


NAVAI.  Mll.lTIA l8 

Navai.  Vksski,— brick  model  at  World's  Fair i8 

(See  "Vessels.") 

Naviks,  r^ivAi.— on  lakes  in  1S15 11,  60,  66 

Reduction  of '4.  'S.  65 

Navic.ation  of   iiik  Lakes,  proposed  to  restrict  United  Stales 
in 49 

NiaiTKAi.iTv  OK  I-AKKS,  necessary  for  trade 43 

siiKKeslcd  by  Wasiiinj^ton 60 

contemplated  by  Castlereagh 61 

propositions  for 6S,  87 

proiioscd  extension  of  tile  principle 164 

Ni:rrKAt.  Poi.icv  ok  tiik  Unitkd  States, 

,^9,  94,  95.  99.  '"I.  102,   118 
Governor-Cieneral  Head's  opinion 96 

j\\7i'  Orleans,  The   - 

inqniry  as  to  completion  of 123 

reckoned  on  the  navy  list 130,  138 

NoRTiiwicsr,  contest  for  American  riglits  in 10 

made  a  part  of  Canada  by  Quebec  Act 29 

Clark's  expedition  to 30 

Okdnance  Stokes,  inquiry  as  to     118 

Orkcon  Boundarv     87,  129 

"PATKior   "  Kehem.ion 15.  91 

sympathizers'  lodjjes      92 

enlistments  at  Buflalo 92 

decline  of 94.  96 

sympathizers  warned  by  Scott 10; 

"Peace  Establishments,"  tendency  of 24,  69,  70 

Peace,  negotiations  for 51-55 

Proci-amations  ok  President  to  Preserve  Nkitkality, 

94.  99.   i>8 

Recii'ROCitv  Treatv 132 

terminated 158 

Rkdiction  ok  Armaments — 

growing  sentiment  in  favor  of 25 

good  effects  of 14,  15,  65,  130 

REDl'CTKiN  OK  LAKE  F'ORCES 83,    I3I 

Revenue  Vessels — 

not  apart  of  naval  force 13,  148 

for  the  lakes 17.  i57 


■■A 


A/.-\ 


>•■■■ 


I 


!,SI 


■•   ;t' 


M 


Hi 


198 


Index. 


U;M  ■: 


11^'! ! 


T' 


Revenue  Vksski.s— 

Madison's  idea  of  not  allowing 74 

transferred  from  lakes  to  ocean 130,  139 

American  increase  of  upon  lakes 132,  148 

British  inquiries  concerning 133-4,  166 

Canadian,  source  of  some  apprehension 183 

American,  size  of 178 

St.  Alban's  Raid 153 

Search  of  Lake  Vessels    .   .       72,  79,  So 

Secret  Societies — to  aid  revolution  in  Canada 116 

Seward,  W.  H.,  letters  as  to  border  feeling 115,  117 

recommends  lake  defences 139 

as  to  Confederates  in  Canada 137,    153,  155 

concerning  the  Agreement  of  1817 138,  148,    151,  165 

suggests  some  co-operation  in  repressing  political  agitators,    155-6 

Ship  Canal  Convention 143 

Sources  ok  Material 7 

Spanish  Desires  in  the  West 31 

Statement  01-  Naval  Vessels  in  1816 Si,   82 

Treat  ''s — of  1783,  disputes  over 38,   39 

proposed  abrogation  of 150 

of  Reciprocity 132,  158 

of  Washington 173 

(See  Agreement  of  181 7.) 

7>-^«/ afihir 16,  139 

Vessels,  Naval — brick  model  at  World's  Fair 18 

Vessels,  seizure  of  Canadian 42 

early  lake  steamers 90 

dismantling  of 85,  130 

A'oi^y/ /(?<?/,  burned  by  "  Patriots  " 97 

of  "  Patriots,"  seizure  by  United  States 99 

British,  fired  upon  in  Niagara  river 118 

revenue,  taken  from  lakes 130,  139 

Confederate  attempts  to  obtain 137 

armed,  recommended  for  the  lakes 152 

War — danger  ofin  1839  and  184 1 105-6,    114-19 

War  of  181 2 — 

causes     43 

American  plans  to  get  control  of  lakes 44 

lake  force  in 44-6,    52 

American  plan  to  stop  British  trade 47 


ifti 

'•  ' 

IH 

f  ■  y 

*  •  • 

i 

A-^ 

'  iJa  1 ;  i  ; 

\  \ 

IF 


Index 


199 


War  ok  1812 — 

Purpose  of  invasion  of  Canada 48 

negotiations  for  peace      51-55 

peace 56,  57 

War,  Civil. — 

a  source  of  new  difficulties 136,  139,  145,  149 

talli  of  Canadian  defences 137 

Confederates  in  Canada 137 

on  the  lakes      152 

fears  of  American  conquest 161 

Webster,  notes  as  to  Britisli  forces     120 

West,  Tiie — 

intercourse  with 29,  37 

emigration  to 48,  91 

aslis  for  its  share  of  appropriations iir,   U2 

(See  "Northwest"  and  "Commerce.") 

West  India  Tkadk 88,  89 


>A 


w 


